Download - Medieval Ritual Magic in the Renaissance

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Aries Vol. 3, no. 2

MEDIEVAL RITUAL MAGIC IN THE RENAISSANCE

FRANK KLAASSEN

Frances Yates rescue of Renaissance magic from obscurity was in large meas-ure founded upon the notion that the publication of De vita coelituscomparanda in 1489 constituted a fundamental break with the past in whichthe new elegant magic of Marsilio Ficino stood in stark contrast to the olddirty magic of the middle ages. The newness of Renaissance magic might befound in its urbane language, its philosophical and religious character, and itsattempt to recover the original magic of a pristine past through the use of an-cient texts, particularly hermetic and neoplatonic works. At the same time,Yates argued, the principle point of continuity between medieval and Renais-sance magic could be found in several areas: common astrological supposi-tions; the use of certain groupings of natural substances; the use of talismansand invocations; a common belief in spiritus as the vehicle for astral influence;and common integration of magic into a philosophical framework1. Thus whenshe spoke of Ficinos medieval sources, she was referring principally to tradi-tions of scholastic natural philosophy and of astrological image magic, a tradi-tion largely of Arabic provenance. For example, Yates demonstrated Ficinosdebt to the Picatrix2. Subsequent scholars have continued along these paths.The most significant in the case of Ficino would be Brian Copenhavers stud-ies of Ficinos debts to Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus, and Thomas Aquinas,and more recently, Nicholas Weill-Parots admirable examination of the tradi-tion of image magic through the later middle ages to Ficino3. A host of otherscholars have now begun the task of editing, analysing, and explicating themedieval traditions of astrological magic in their own right4. The importance

1 Yates, Giordano Bruno, 80-1.2 Yates, Giordano Bruno, 69-72.3 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques.4 The work of David Pingree has been particularly important in its attempt to trace the for-

tunes of magic of arabic extraction in Europe. See for example: Pingree, Between the Ghaya andthe Picatrix, 27-56; Picatrix: The Latin version; Some of the Sources, 1-15; The Diffusion ofArabic Magical Texts, 57-102; Learned Magic in the Time of Frederick II, 42-43. The numer-ous studies of Charles Burnett are tremendously important and many are collected in Burnett,Magic and Divination. His other studies include Adelard, Ergaphalau and the Science of theStars, Arabic, Greek, and Latin Works, and Scandinavian Runes. Very important for theongoing manuscript research is Lucentini and Perrone Compagni, I testi e I codici di ermete.Important for the medieval traditions of image magic and their relationship to necromantic tradi-tions is Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques. Important for the understanding of scholastic

MEDIEVAL RITUAL MAGIC IN THE RENAISSANCE 167

of this tradition, especially before 1500, is attested by hundreds of manu-scripts.

But medieval ritual magic has received far less attention, in particular in itsrelation to Renaissance magic. In some measure the lack of attention to the socalled dirty magic (or the old hole-and-corner business of the persecutedmedieval magician as Yates would elsewhere have it) results from the fact thatthese traditions are understood to have been transcended by Renaissancemagic5. While some recent scholarship has noted the debt of Renaissancemagic to medieval works of ritual magic6 it is generally assumed that these textsoffered little of interest to the new Renaissance magus. If they have recognizedany connection at all, scholars have followed Charles Nauerts lead, admitting aprobable influence but focusing instead upon other sorts of sources7. No doubt,the great diversity of this literature, the limited number of printed editions ofmedieval ritual magic texts, and the lack of clear connections with Renaissancewriters has made the prospect of investigating this literature daunting. How-ever, the recent and forthcoming publication of a number of important editions,not to mention a growing body of secondary literature, will make it impossibleto ignore8. Yet another reason for the lack of attention to connections betweenmedieval ritual magic and magic in the Renaissance is that the nature of the twocan be so different as to preclude any simplistic comparison. How can onecompare the stellar intellectual acrobatics of a Marsilio Ficino, CorneliusAgrippa, or John Dee to the run-of-the-mill productions of a single medievalnecromantic writer, especially when such Renaissance writers strongly disa-

reactions to image magic is Zambelli, The Speculum Astronomiae and its Enigma. Most re-cently, some very important work has been undertaken by Sophie Page which integrates thestudy of ritual and image magic with the study of manuscripts and their monastic context. SeePage, Magic at St Augustines.

5 Yates, Giordano Bruno, 142.6 I refer here particularly to Clucas, Non est legendum and Regimen Animarum et

Corporum.7 Nauert, Agrippa, 231.8 For editions of works of ritual magic see Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites. John of Morigny,

Prologue. Forthcoming editions of the Ars notoria by Julien Veronese and the Liber sacer orSworn Book of Honorius by Gsta Hedegrd will also make a substantial contribution. Forarticles on ritual magic see for example the numerous books and articles by Richard Kieckhefer,Forbidden Rites, Magic in the Middle Ages, The Holy and the Unholy, The Specific Rational-ity of Medieval Magic, Erotic Magic in Medieval Europe, and The Devils Contemplatives.The work of Claire Fanger and Nicholas Watson has been particularly important for the study ofthe tradition of the notory art. See Fanger, Plundering the Egyptian Treasure. Watson, John theMonks Book. Stephen Clucas has attempted to demonstrate the influence of medieval ritualmagic upon the practices of John Dee. Clucas, Non est legendum and Regimen Animarum etCorporum. Mathiesen, A 13th-Century Ritual. Klaassen, English Manuscripts and Transfor-mations of Magic.

168 FRANK KLAASSEN

vowed any connection to necromantic practice? It may well be that Ficino,Agrippa, Dee, and the other great Renaissance mages did not borrow specificsegments from medieval ritual works. It is certainly true that magic tending tothe astrological and mathematical is an easily identifiable source among theirmagical practices. However, an examination of the copying patterns of magicalmanuscripts 1300-1600 should lead us to reconsider the importance of the olddirty magic.

Our discussion will begin by examining the divisions of magic both as de-scribed in the Speculum astronomiae, and also as suggested by the texts ofmagic themselves and the patterns in their treatment and collection in manu-scripts. The second portion of our discussion will examine over time the pat-terns of copying of the two significant divisions of magic, image magic andritual magic, and in particular the sudden apparent decline in interest in imagemagic in the sixteenth century. With additional reference to sixteenth-centuryliterature and printed books, the third portion of the paper will attempt to ex-plain the apparent decline of image magic and the accompanying continuedinterest in medieval ritual magic.

Two Divisions of Medieval Magic: Image Magic and Ritual Magic

A common starting point for discussions of medieval magic is the Speculumastronomiae. The divisions of images it proposes one abominable, oneslightly less so, and one potentially legitimate are ambiguous and continue toevade explanation9. David Pingree has suggested that the work divides illicitmagic into hermetic and solomonic categories. Hermetic texts work pri-marily with talismans constructed at suitable astrological moments, from suit-able material, and often with some form of ritual action such as suffumigation,incantation, or animal sacrifice. The goal of all of this, including the ritualactions, was to focus the powers of celestial influences or rays in a talisman formagical purposes10. It is fairly easy to identify surviving examples of thesetexts from the titles and incipits and hence to arrive at a more or less compre-hensive understanding of this category. Defining solomonic magic, on theother hand, presents more difficulties since the Speculum provides only a briefand rather vague definition and considerably fewer examples. In addition, themanuscript traditions of this material tend to be a good deal more chaotic.Pingree suggests that Firenze NB II-iii-214 is probably a copy of a thirteenth-century manuscript from Paris and contains many of the solomonic works re-

9 Speculum astronomiae, XI.10 Pingree, Learned Magic, 42-43.


ferred to in the Speculum. On this basis he describes the solomonic texts asthose instructing one how to bind the demons and malefic spirits, or the an-gels to do their will, to compel them by ritual acts and threats of violence tocarry out the necromancers wishes11. Nicholas Weill-Parots interpretationmodifies Pingrees ideas in significant ways. He first observes that there is agreat deal of overlapping between the two categories. For example, he notesthat in most ritual magic images, characters, and seals play a major role inoperations involving angels. He thus suggests that the ritual magic of thesolomonic Ars notoria, with its attention to astrological conditions and the useof notae, might be regarded as very similar to the processes of the first cat-egory (hermetic), where images are employed under certain astrologicalconditions12. Nonetheless he suggests that the first category, the hermetic orabominable texts, may be distinguished by its emphasis upon talismans, onastrological conditions, and upon astral spirits. The second category, thesolomonic or detestable texts employ more complex figures which exceedthe common definition of a talisman and tend to employ inscriptions of variouskinds. The texts also make less frequent references to astrology and draw inelaborate ritual practices employing characteristic objects such as swords andcandles13. In a more general sense, Weill-Parot also argues that both the idea ofimage magic and the actual practice represented in the available texts were atodds with the notion of a legitimate, natural astrological image magic pro-posed in the Speculum astronomiae. The necessity of intervening intelligencesfor the operation of image magic made it impossible to justify by conventionalstandards. So the legacy of the Speculum was one of intellectual ambivalence.In addition, in fundamental ways, it did not represent the realities of the magi-cal traditions it claims to discuss. Thus, since our primary goal is to understandthe broader culture of magic the later middle ages, it is perhaps better not torely upon this idiosyncratic work. A more useful approach is to examine themanuscripts for evidence as to how they were treated and understood by theirscribes and collectors. In turn this approach will also help us to better under-stand the approach taken in the Speculum.

Nicholas Weill-Parot argues that Arabic image magic was fundamentallyincompatible with medieval Christian intellectual traditions. This incompat-ibility derives from what he refers to as the destinativity of image magic, theelements within this tradition which clearly involved (or had to involve) com-

11 Pingree, Learned Magic, 42-43.12 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 59.13 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 60.

170 FRANK KLAASSEN

munication with sentient spiritual beings14.Nonetheless, the vast majority ofthe texts of the Speculums categories one and three were collected in manu-scripts with works of astrology, medicine, naturalia, and works of natural phi-losophy in the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries. Very few appear incollections dedicated to explicit and highly ritualized demonic or angelicmagic of the solomonic variety. This strongly suggests that the scribes eitherpersisted in the illusive dream of a legitimate image magic untainted by de-mons, maintained it as a theoretical possibility, or, while recognizing the theo-retical problems it represented, simply regarded this magical literature as be-longing in the sphere of inquiry related to the natural world. This is notsurprising since these texts were introduced into the Latin world as a part ofArabic science. They were approached using theoretical works such as theSpeculum astronomiae, al-Kindis De radiis stellarum, or Qusta ibn LuqasDe physicis ligaturis as is attested by the tremendous influence of the Specu-lum and the fact that image magic texts were frequently collected with theseworks15. It seems that at least some of the scribes regarded the ritual activitiesthey contained, including suffumigation and incantation, as possible forms ofnatural magic according to ideas like those of al-Kindi16. The texts were gener-

14 The incompatibility of the arabic magical traditions with Christian philosophy is the centraltheme of this book. The issue of destinativity is discussed throughout. For a definition of theterm see Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 37.

15 See for example the following manuscripts which contain both texts of image magic andtheoretical works such as the Speculum astronomiae, al-Kindis De radiis stellarum, and Qustaibn Luqas De physicis ligaturis.Speculum astronomiae: London, Institution of Electrical Engineers, Thompson

Collection S. C. MSS 3/5; Mnchen, Bayerische Staats-bibliothek, CLM 27; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby228; Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica, Pal.Lat. 1381; and Vaticano (Citt del), BibliotecaApostolica, Pal. Lat. 1445b

al-Kindi, De radiis stellarum: Edinburgh, Royal Observatory Cr.3.14; Erfurt, Colle-gium Amplonianum, Math. 9. (21.31) (Gottlieb. 6; me-dieval catalogue); Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Lauren-ziana, Plut. 30, Cod. 29; Oxford, Bodleian Library,Selden Supra 76 (Bernard 3464); and York, Austin Fri-ars A8 362 (medieval catalogue).

Qusta ibn Luqa, De physicis ligaturis: Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1275 (medieval cata-logue); Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1277 = Ox-ford, Corpus Christi College 125; Firenze, BibliotecaNazionale Centrale di Firenze, II-iii-214; and poten-tially, Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 7337.

16 The De radiis stellarum of al-Kindi was a work of arabic philosophy widely known inscholastic circles. It begins with Aristotles contention that the stars are responsible for all sub-lunar change. According to al-Kindi, this occurs through their rays which impress forms uponsublunary things. These forms, in turn, also produce rays in imitation of their celestial exemplars.


ally transmitted like other scientific texts in a faithful manner (which is to sayit is reasonably easy to identify standard texts by title and incipit) and were, inappearance, much like the surrounding works of naturalia. Finally, not onlydid the Speculum astronomiae frame the discussion of images until the end ofthe fifteenth century, but as a rule scribes were clearly aware of its theoreticalunderpinnings and its injunctions. This is made clear not only by marginalnotes in manuscripts but also by the fact that the works it approved, or thosewhich it overlooked but which took more or less the same form as those itapproved, were copied far more often than any other works of image magic17.The influence of the Speculum may also be detected in two original works ofimage magic discussed by Weill-Parot. As he points out, the authors chose toelaborate upon Thabit ibn Qurras De imaginibus, a work regarded as poten-tially legitimate in the Speculum astronomiae18. While Weill-Parot demon-strates that the scholastic establishment of the middle ages (medical, astrologi-cal, and philosophical) was entirely unreceptive if not hostile to the notion ofastrological image magic, those who took a differing view were more thanoften scholastics themselves as were the collectors of the magical texts. Thustaking into consideration the intellectual heritage of those involved, their edu-cation and approach, their awareness of the greater philosophical traditions,and assumption that astrological image magic belonged to the sphere ofnaturalia, we could reasonably refer to this intellectual tradition as scholasticimage magic despite the fact that in philosophical terms the phrase might bedeemed self-contradictory. In any event, while recognizing the limitations ofthe term, from this point on I will use the term image magic to refer to thisgroup of texts and the associated assumptions.

The second group of manuscripts (more like the Speculums second andless abominable but still detestable category which represents it in part) isbetter described simply as ritual magic. The most basic feature of this materialis its emphasis upon ritual action in itself as the source of the numinous power(i.e. not as a vehicle for stellar influences). But there are other common fea-tures as well. Almost without exception the operators understood the powersbehind ritual magic to be sentient beings which might be conjured or peti-

By manipulation of earthly forms (in which are included not only objects, but also images,words, smells, sounds, and gestures) and with due attention to the changing qualities of celestialinflux, the sage can create his own rays and effect miraculous changes in the physical world. SeeAl-Kindi, de Radiis, M. T. dAlverny and F. Hudry (eds.). See also Travaglia, Magic, Causalityand Intentionality.

17 For example, I know of over fifty manuscript versions of Thabit ibn Qurras De imaginibusand over forty of works of images attributed to Ptolemy. I argue this point in more detail inKlaassen, Transformations of Magic, 56-62.

18 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 602-622.

172 FRANK KLAASSEN

tioned. Thus one might suggest that the distinguishing feature of this traditionwas its lack of concern with the problem of involving spiritual intelligences(i.e. destinativity). However, this would be to view this tradition from theoutside taking the perspective of those desiring to establish a legitimatenatural magic which would gravely misrepresent the tradition. More analo-gous to religion than science, ritual magic frequently sets out to achieve directexperience of these beings, either through a human medium or in a waking ordream vision. Interior experience in the interpretation of visions (either expe-rienced or reported), the necessity of achieving certain spiritual states, and theuse of contemplative exercises sets this tradition apart as well. Often charac-terized as theurgic, the texts also commonly seek spiritual or intellectual en-lightenment, once again emphasizing interiority. As a whole this genre is farless concerned with justifying itself by referring to philosophical authorities.This is no great virtue because unlike the case of image magic, which hadsignificant defenders, ritual magic could not rely on any authoritative opinion,right or wrong. In addition, the field of inquiry surrounding image magic hadbeen framed by the Speculum astronomiae as an issue in natural philosophy,and this is how the scribes tended to approach it. Authors of ritual magic texts,on the other hand, had to elaborate justifications based in the complex rhetoricof mysticism or in bold claims to divine sanction or inspiration19. As a resulttheir chief claim to legitimacy lay in their orthodox appearance, internalarguments which elaborated upon orthodox ideas and sources, strenuous ad-herence to traditional notions of piety in their rules and practices (abstinence,prayer, mortification, etc.), or claims to direct sanction by the divine. The ritu-als are in large measure based upon liturgical sources and also regularly em-ploy Old and New Testament passages as incantatory formulae. Commonlytheir authors not only claim to have received direct divine sanction but alsodivine instruction through visionary experiences. In fact, even necromantictexts regularly include rituals to acquire angelic and divine protection andguidance. Both rituals and autobiographical evidence demonstrate that ritualmagic was understood as an art in which experience and direct instruction orrevelation would expand the knowledge and skill of the operator20. Employingtheir direct experience in the magical art and styling themselves as divinelyinspired Christian magi, these practitioners often wrote new works of ritualmagic or transformed and supplemented the older ones. They were not, thus,

19 On ritual magic and the rhetoric of mystical writers see Watson, John the Monks Book ofVisions. For autobiographical evidence see John of Morigny, Prologue, 245.

20 See for example rituals in Oxford, Rawlinson D. 252, in which the operator seeks informa-tion about demonic powers. For a more detailed discussion see, Klaassen, Transformations ofMagic, 178-188.


simply passive transmitters of ancient information, but active researchers anddisseminators of occult information. This tradition is also highly fluid in itstextual contents, a situation compounded by the fact that the mythology of thedivinely inspired magus tended to encourage constant rewriting and reformu-lating. With this in mind, let us return to the definitional problem raised by theSpeculum astronomiae.

Based upon the Florentine manuscript he discusses, Pingree has suggestedthat this tradition encompasses a set of practices broader than image magicincluding binding and deploying demons and angels through ritual acts of vio-lence. This certainly describes the magic in this manuscript, and much of thecontents of ritual magic collections, but there are other elements which need tobe added to our definition of this complex set of sources. First, ritual magiccollections involve a much wider variety of practices. Ritual violence is rare.Many, if not most, of the angelic operations are supplicatory and the authorscommonly observe the rule that only demons may be commanded 21. Ritualsfor dream visions, angelic protection, and the infusion of wisdom also com-monly recur. Finally, although certainly based upon more ancient antecedentslike the Testament of Solomon, the ritual magic material commonly incorpo-rates a wide variety of Christian ritual practices, largely from the liturgy. Sec-ond, this definition does not include the practices of the Ars notoria, probablythe single most important text of late medieval ritual magic22. It claims to pro-vide spiritual and intellectual gifts to the operator, putatively infused by theHoly Spirit through angel intermediaries following a variety of essentially re-ligious exercises (fasting, prayer, contemplation, etc.) Prior to the sixteenthcentury, the Ars notoria appears more often in manuscript than any other ritualmagic text. I also suspect it was referred to by name and discussed more oftenthan any other single work of ritual magic. A number of other texts were devel-oped based upon its practices as well including the Liber visionum of John ofMorigny23, some necromantic versions24, as well as numerous shorter ver-

21 See for example, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D. 253, p. 7. The first general apho-rism is, that you must know that the 7 holy planetary angels are not to be constrained in suchmanner as other spirits far inferior, as threatenings such manner of constrains and adjurations butonly by devote prayer to god and a true faith and holy and religious life and conversation to god,faith, home and charity, towards god and his people, and by reverent holy and gentle narations,requiring and advising them by divine power and the love and obedience due unto the true godcreator of the world and father of our lord Jesus Christ, etc., and not by threatening ex-communications and castings out etc..

22 Weill-Parot has noted this fact as well. Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 59-60.23 Fanger, Plundering the Egyptian Treasure, 242-249. Watson, John the Monks Book of

Visions.24 Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites, 193-196.

174 FRANK KLAASSEN

sions25. A similar text, also surviving in a number of manuscripts, the Libersacer, claims to provide instructions to allow one to have the beatific vision26.Weill-Parots definition of this category is thus far more accurate and inclu-sive. Yet we need to add to his observations that this tradition is more funda-mentally concerned with direct experience of the divine, more interiorised,less concerned with developing an association with natural philosophy, andcentrally concerned with the numinous power of Christian ritual. So with thisin mind, let us return to the definitions of the Speculum.

The descriptions in the Speculum are tantalizingly vague, defining this cat-egory as those texts using characters which are exorcized by certain names(qui fit per inscriptionem characterum per quaedam nomina exorcizando-rum)27. As a description of most necromantic or solomonic material this israther weak if only due to the fact that a significant portion of the literaturemakes no use of inscribed characters of any kind, and strictly speaking, exor-cisms are also not a consistent presence either. But if we assume a slightly lessstrict set of definitions, we come closer to the original intention. Most ritualmagic practice is formed from elaborations upon liturgical practice, and muchspecifically upon exorcisms. If we understand this term to imply the inappro-priate use and reformulation of Christian ritual for the purposes of magicaloperations, we can accommodate most ritual magic, and as we have seen itwould not be an inappropriate way of referring to the tradition. In addition,although the use of talismans is by no means ubiquitous in ritual magic collec-tions, the use of written devices of various kinds is very common. Quite com-mon are phrases inscribed on parchment (which we might refer to as leatheramulets), but we also find complex signs such the notae of the Ars notoria andnecromantic circles. The description of these as inscribed characters (whichdistinguishes them from talismans in the more strict sense of the word) couldbe regarded as perfectly reasonable.

It remains to account for the idiosyncratic nature of the list of ritual magicworks (e.g. why the Ars notoria is not included) and the reason why the authorwould regard ritual magic as less detestable. Here we need to recall that theauthor of the Speculum frames the subject of chapter eleven as scienciaimaginum and that the entire book involves questions relating to astrology.While the Ars notoria observes lunations, this is certainly not the central op-erative feature of this text and it would be practically impossible to suggest

25 See for example the Ars crucifixi in London, British Library, Harley 181, ff. 75r-81v. Onthis text see also Clucas, Regimen animarum et corporum, 113-129.

26 Mathiesen, A 13th-Century Ritual, 143-162.27 Speculum astronomiae, XI, 21-23.


that the notae were anything like astrological images. These are, in fact, com-plex diagrams often occupying an entire folio page in which lengthy prayersare written in full. In turn, the active moment in the use of these notae does notinvolve their infusion with astral power but is a psychic or interior one whenthe operator inspects them. In addition, considerable portions of the ritualmagic tradition involve very limited use of astrology and images, and someemploy none at all28. As will be clear from the descriptions of ritual magic,only a portion of this literature could reasonably be included in this discussion.It is conceivable that the works cited in the second category in the Speculumwere originally more like astrological angel magic and that their contents in-creasingly shifted in the direction of explicit necromancy29. But it seems morelikely that the author of the Speculum was, as he explicitly says, principallyconcerned with magical practices which masqueraded as having purely astro-logical mechanisms. Hence, with very good reason, much of the ritual magictradition would simply never be included.

Recalling that the work sets out to discuss astrological images also helps toaccount for the puzzling fact that works of astrological image magic would beregarded as more detestable than explicit works of demon conjuring (the sec-ond and somewhat less unsuitable variety of magic). When the author speaksof the second category he rejects it on the grounds that something may lieunder the names of the unknown languages that might be contrary to theCatholic faith (sub ignotae liguae nominibus aliquod lateat, quod sit contrafidei catolicae)30. The standard written element in most demon and angelmagic was a slightly modified Latin liturgy, language which was quite under-standable. Although strange words do appear in these works, one need notlook to them to demonstrate their fundamentally unorthodox nature. Giventhat the fundamental concern with magical practice from Augustine on (andcertainly that of the Speculum) was demons, one would think that explicit de-

28 See for example the operations in Rawlinson D. 252, ff. 1-13 and 15-24. This manuscriptalso employs the recitation of the psalms as independent operations. See, ff.125r-126r. An ex-tended analysis of this manuscript may be found in Klaassen, Transformations of Magic, 162-188. For another example of the use of psalms see Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana,Plut. 89, Sup. 38, ff. 315-325. See also Mnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 849, ff.106r-v (Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites, 343-343).

29 For example, despite similarities such as the names of rings, some of the manuscripts of theRings of Solomon include explicitly necromantic practices (e.g. Firenze, Biblioteca NazionaleCentrale di Firenze, II-iii-214, ff. 26v-29v and Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut.89, Sup. 38, ff. 211-224) while others are more like regular astrological image magic (London,British Library, Sloane 3847, ff. 66v-81). This interpretation of the evidence would suggest thatthe latter is more like the original.

30 Speculum astronomiae, XI, 32-33.

176 FRANK KLAASSEN

mon conjuring would be condemned outright if that was what was being spo-ken about. Weill-Parot has suggested that the second category more closelyreflects Christian religious sensibilities in the kind of rituals it employs and inthe way it commands demons (as opposed to supplicating them)31. While thisis probably correct we must recall that amongst ritual magic texts, angel magicregularly recurs and almost uniformly involves supplication. An orthodoxreader would not regard these texts as legitimate and by implication the angelswould be assumed to be demons. Hence the second category would also beunderstood to involve supplication of demons. On balance, however, thestrong presence of operations which command demons in the ritual magic tra-dition make Weill-Parots interpretation the most likely. And this seems evenmore likely if we recall that the Speculum was not considering the entire scopeof ritual magic but rather a restricted group of texts or practices within it. Oneway or another, it must be observed that, where this work may be used todiscuss image magic, it has far less value in the discussion of ritual magic,which it does not fully represent. In fact, the ongoing lack of attention to ritualmagic texts can probably be attributed to this seminal work.

Up to the end of the fifteenth century the manuscripts of these two tradi-tions, ritual magic and image magic, for the most part travel in separatestreams32. Almost uniformly, works of arabic image magic, particularly thosebelonging to the first (hermetic or abominable) and third (potentially legiti-mate) categories in the Speculum astronomiae, travel with works of naturalia,the most common context being codices concerning astrology. Collections in-cluding books of secrets, alchemy, stones or gems, recipes, and natural phi-losophy are also common contexts for a work on image magic. Usually sepa-rated from any other kind of intellectual material the ritual magic texts,including demon and angel magic, tend to be found in dedicated collections,although necromantic texts also survive due to having been written more orless randomly in the margins or blank pages of available codices. The Arsnotoria tends to travel on its own or with variant forms of the same tradition. Insome cases it may be found with divinatory material and also with devotionalliterature. It also may be found occasionally connected with works ofnaturalia, but this is rare among ritual magic texts. Thus, reversing the evalu-ation of the Speculum astronomiae, image magic works appear to have beenregarded as less abominable than the texts of ritual magic. There are someexceptions to the rule that these streams travel separately, yet even in the rarecases where they occur in the same volume the two traditions are clustered

31 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 62.32 For an expanded discussion of this subject see Klaassen, English Manuscripts.


together in distinct groups within the codices indicating, at least, that thescribes were aware of the differences between them33.

While this pattern is almost ubiquitous prior to 1500, it changes dramati-cally at that time. Beginning in the fifteenth century and carrying through thesixteenth, it becomes much more common for collections of magic to includeboth ritual and image magic. In addition, the medieval form of collection inwhich works of naturalia are collected with works of image magic drops radi-cally in number. That this shift in the pattern of collection coincides roughlywith the magical Renaissance is the focus of the latter half of this article.

The Problem: The Decline of Image Magic?

The numbers of codices containing works of astrological image magic plottedby their date of copying (Figure 1) reveal a dramatic and puzzling trend34. If

33 In Klaassen, English Manuscripts, 10-11, I discuss the example of a manuscript recordedin the catalogue of the York Austin Friars, A 362. See also Firenze, Biblioteca NazionaleCentrale di Firenze, II-iii-214. This manuscript is discussed in detail by David Pingree inLearned Magic.

34 I include in this list only those texts which are dedicated solely or almost entirely to magicalimages, such as those texts listed in the Speculum astronomiae and most of these texts corre-spond to its first and third categories (i.e. hermetic and tentatively approved).

178 FRANK KLAASSEN

we look at raw numbers of codices containing works on image magic, the peakin production of manuscripts of this genre would appear to be in the fifteenthcentury with a radical diminution in the sixteenth century. This peak in thefifteenth century bears out Weill-Parots claim that there was a great interest inthis literature at that time, perhaps encouraged by an increased level of toler-ance35. Yet these figures must be adjusted to some extent, at least mentally, dueto the undoubtedly large number of manuscripts that did not survive from ear-lier centuries. This would tend to push the figures in the earlier centurieshigher relative to later ones. In addition, I have plotted manuscripts knownonly through references to them in medieval library catalogues according tothe date of the catalogues production (i.e. the latest possible date). Many, nodoubt, pre-dated the catalogue by a century or two. Hence it is reasonable toassume (even given that these figures can be taken as no more than roughindicators) that a relatively high level of production took place in the four-teenth and fifteenth centuries and that the sudden drop in the sixteenth is evenmore dramatic than what is presented here (roughly 63%). But before attempt-ing to interpret this situation, a number of factors must be examined in moredetail. First, how did the availability of printed versions of these texts bearupon the numbers of manuscript copies made? Second, might the political andreligious upheavals of the sixteenth century have affected the frequency withwhich these texts were copied? Third, does the nature of these codices, inparticular their contents, change over time, and might this explain what washappening?

Printed works of image magic were available in the sixteenth century andthis might account for the drop in manuscript copies. A scribe who could pur-chase a printed version would hardly feel compelled to go through the troubleof copying it. Ficinos De vita libri tres, which passed through numerous six-teenth-century editions, contained sections on image magic36. The Speculumlapidum of Leonardus Camillus concerns the properties of stones and alsocontains a large section on magical images carved in stones. After a theoreticaldiscussion of natural magic, the work goes on to list magical images from

35 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 592. This suggestion is also problematic sincethe greatest number of image magic texts are contained in larger codices whose contents are non-magical. Thus while the copying of the text may be a significant moment for the study of imagemagic, the survival or destruction of such texts was probably indifferent to their magical content.Exceptions to this could be an instance when an entire codex was destroyed for the sake of a fewfolios or when folios containing magic were cut out.

36 The British Library Short Title Catalogue lists the following 13 editions of the De triplicavita the third part of which is the De vita coelitus comparanda: Florence, 1489; Florence, 1490;1501; Argen.., 1511; Venice?, 1525?; Basel, 1532; Paris, 1547; Lyon, 1560; 1584; Paris?, 1616;Strasburg, 1521; Venice, 1498; 1520?.


various sources, including the standard authors Raziel, Thetel, and Hermes.Some of these are re-written, some are extracted from other authors, most aremore or less direct transcriptions from the circulating manuscripts. Twoprinted editions of this book derive from the early part of the sixteenth cen-tury37. In addition, the hermetic De quindecim stellis accompanied an editionof Ptolemy38, and Thabit ibn Qurras De imaginibus was published independ-ently at Frankfurt in 1559. Hence, the argument might go, the popularity ofFicino and Camilluss works indicate a wide-scale interest in astrological im-age magic, and the resulting goodly number of printed editions of image magicworks would make manuscript copying obsolete. In addition, the popular na-ture of these publications would have put many copies in the hands of non-specialists who bought the books as curiosities and so they would have beenavailable in a wide number of places, making the need for copying even lessurgent.

The presence of this printed literature, however, cannot account for the lackof manuscript copies. In fact, it drives us to further questions about the place ofimage magic in the Renaissance. First, to acquire a collection of image magicworks in the sixteenth century solely through printed works, one would havehad to purchase many volumes. Some, like the edition of Ptolemys works,would have been relatively expensive purchases not only because printedbooks were very expensive in their own right, but because one would have topurchase a large volume for the sake of only a few pages of text. Similarly inthe case of the De vita libri tres, the practical sections on image magic arequite short relative to the length of the volume. In addition, Ficino and otherswere justifiably circumspect in the amount of practical instruction they offer.So printed versions were not the most cost effective ways of acquiring infor-mation on the practice of image magic. On a practical level, not everyonewould have had the necessary financial resources and, anyone with a highlevel of interest, would have been driven to making their own copies. A logicalresult of this situation would be that those interested in this literature and lack-ing the luxury of a large personal library would have compiled their own hand-written collections. The texts on image magic are short, quick to copy, or inex-pensive to have copied by someone else. So almost every aspect of thesituation suggests that one could reasonably expect more manuscript copies(rather than less) to have been produced. The texts were available and easy to

37 I have employed, Camillus Leonardus, Speculum Lapidum (Hamburg: ChristianumLiebeziel, 1717). It was published in Latin editions in 1502 (Venice), 1516 (Venice), and 1610(Paris). Italian editions date from 1565 and 1617. An English edition was printed in 1750 (Lon-don). Thorndike, History of Magic, VI, 298-302.

38 Venice, 1549.

180 FRANK KLAASSEN

copy, but expensive to purchase in printed volumes; if practical informationwas lacking in the printed works, copies of the old manuscript versions couldbe found to fill in the gaps. Yet no wide scale copying took place in fact itdrops off radically and thus we are even further from explaining the declinein manuscript copies.

If we compare this with the case of ritual magic we have even further rea-sons to doubt that this drop was due to the availability of printed books. Nu-merous works concerning ritual magic were available in print in the sixteenthcentury and this had no apparent negative impact upon the copying of works ofritual magic in manuscript. Three editions of the Fourth Book of Occult Phi-losophy (a work concerning geomancy, which circulated under Agrippasname), another work on ceremonial magic attributed to Agrippa, and a similartext called Arbatel were printed around the middle of the sixteenth century39.The latter is a clear discussion of ceremonial magic. A work on ritual magicentitled Heptameron and attributed to Peter of Abano also appeared in six-teenth-century editions40. Reginald Scots Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584)contains almost 60 pages of necromantic operations drawn largely from medi-eval sources and for the most part indistinguishable from them41. This is not tomention the multiple editions and translations of the De occulta philosophia ofAgrippa42. Thus ritual magic also had a significant presence in printed works.

39 The spurious Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy passed through three Latin editions(Marburg, 1559 and Paris 1565 and 1567). A Latin edition of the Fourth Book of Occult Philoso-phy and the accompanying texts also appeared in the 1600 and 1630 editions of Agrippas OperaOmnia published at Lyon and in two English editions published in London, 1655 and 1665.Arbatel also appeared in Basel, 1575.

40 This appeared appended to the seventeenth-century editions of Agrippas Opera Omniaand John Frenchs 1655 English translation of The Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy. But alsoindependently in a German edition in Paris, 1567. Reprinted by Verlag in 1971.

41 Reginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft (1583), 376-430.42 There were three printed editions of the De occulta philosophia in the sixteenth century.

The edition published at Cologne in 1533 by Johannes Soter was overseen personally byAgrippa. Its publication had been delayed by the intervention of the Dominican InquisitorConrad Kllin of Ulm. A partial edition may have been printed at Antwerp in 1531 and in Parisby Christianus Wechelus. Subsequent editions include three early seventeenth-century editionsof his Opera omnia published at Lyons, one or two at Strasbourg, and an English edition, London1651. For more information on the printed editions of Agrippas works see Ferguson, Biblio-graphical Notes. A version of the notory art is included in at least one of Agrippas Opera Omniaeditions. Another was published in English translation in London, 1657. A wide variety of othertexts concerning ritual magic were also published in the various Beringos Fratres editions ofAgrippas Opera omnia. For example, the copy used for the Georg Olms Verlag reprint (1970)includes such texts as De speciebus magiae ceremonialis..., De illorum daemonum qui sublunari collimitio versantur..., and Libri arbatel magiae.... The British Library Short Title Cata-logue lists the following 13 editions of the De vita libri tres, the third part of which is the De vitacoelitus comparanda: Florence, 1489; Florence, 1490; 1501; Argen.., 1511; Venice?, 1525?;


Yet in stark contrast to works of image magic, copying of this kind of materialgrew steadily right through our period (Figure 2). One might argue that thiswas due to the fact that the printed works provided better coverage of theliterature of image magic than ritual magic. The result would be that morecopies of ritual magic texts would have to be made. However, the evidencedoes not bear this out either. There were many works of image magic whichwere never printed. In addition, many of the manuscript collections of ritualmagic works include hand-written extracts from printed volumes43. In somecases, such as when an entire volume or large portion was copied out, it wouldappear that the copy was made in lieu of locating and purchasing a printededition.44 In the case of shorter extracts, there is no reason to assume the scribedid not own a printed version of the work being extracted, but used the manu-script book simply to collect significant information together in one place. Yet

Basel, 1532; Paris, 1547; Lyon, 1560; 1584; Paris?, 1616; Strasburg, 1521; Venice, 1498;1520?.

43 See for example London, British Library, Sloane 3850 which contains copies of the FourthBook of Occult Philosophy and Heptameron. For a mid-seventeenth century copy of this worksee London, Wellcome Institute for the History of Science, Wellcome 8. Another late sixteenth-or early seventeenth-century example is London, British Library, Sloane 3851, which contains,in addition to the Fourth Book also the work entitled Arbatel.

44 For a seventeenth-century example see, London, Wellcome Institute for the History of Sci-ence, Wellcome 8.

182 FRANK KLAASSEN


whatever the reasons for copying might have been, one thing is clear. Unlikethe case of image magic, the printed texts concerning ritual magic actuallystimulated the production of more manuscript copies. Similarly, if the politicaland religious upheavals of the sixteenth century affected the copying of imagemagic, they do not appear to have negatively affected the copying of ritualmagic.

The decline in the copying of image magic texts thus appears to be con-nected to other kinds of issues, and in the century in which Ficinos De vitalibri tres was a runaway best seller this would seem very puzzling indeed.However, if we break these figures down into their component parts somedifferent patterns emerge which may help to shed light on the situation. Inparticular, the image magic manuscripts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centurysuggest either the emergence of a different pattern of copying or the increasedsurvival rates of an approach to magic which pre-dated the Renaissance. Inthis pattern, texts of image magic are included as part of collections of ritualmagic works, collections which appear to be principally focused upon ritualmagic and include image magic as a sub-category. I will describe the evidencefor these briefly before attempting to arrive at an explanation.

If we plot the numbers of codices containing both works of ritual magic andimage magic, a rather different pattern emerges than we have seen so far (Fig-ure 3). First, of the manuscripts including image magic in the sixteenth cen-tury, almost half (9 of 19 MSS) occur in codices together with ritual magic. Inaddition, this form of collection actually appears to peak in number during themagical Renaissance. In previous centuries the standard pattern of imagemagic collection included no ritual magic in the vast majority of cases (over85% in the fifteenth century). Many of the sixteenth-century codices continuethe standard pattern of most surviving manuscripts of the fifteenth and priorcenturies45. But a very large portion reflect a new pattern where image magictexts traditionally associated with works of naturalia are now included in col-lections of ritual magic. In some cases like London, British Library, Sloane3822, a collection which combines image magic texts with rituals for confes-sion and exorcism, the overall direction of the scribes interest is not clear. Inmost cases however, where image and ritual magic are combined, the pre-dominant interest of the collector appears to be in ritual magic46. This configu-

45 Among those with this standard medieval pattern are Cambridge, University Library Kk. I.1.; Conte de Sarzana, Private Library, Unnumbered. (a large collection of image magic works);Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canonicanus latinus 500 (Picatrix extract); and Oxford, BodleianLibrary, Ashmole 346 (the collection of an early sixteenth-century British doctor).

46 See for example Cambridge, University Library, Additional 3544; London, British Library,Sloane 3846; London, British Library, Sloane 3847; Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Mus. 173;

184 FRANK KLAASSEN

ration of magical interests which combines ritual and image magic appears tobe the only one which increases in number in the sixteenth century both interms of raw numbers (Figure 3) and also as a percentage of the texts of imagemagic (Figure 4). It is interesting to note that some of the earliest known largecollections of magical works, Pingrees proposed thirteenth-century exemplarfor Firenze NB II-iii-214 and the large volumes owned by John Erghome in thelibrary of the York Austin Friars, follow this same pattern47. To look at it adifferent way, if we look only at those codices which reflect the usual medievalpattern associating image magic with naturalia, the drop in the sixteenth cen-tury becomes very dramatic indeed (almost 83%) (Figure 5).

The numbers presented here are not comprehensive and any study of thiskind contains a number of statistical traps. First, we cannot compare the num-bers of image magic manuscripts with those containing ritual magic, sinceimage magic manuscripts stood a much higher chance of surviving not leastdue to the fact that they usually constituted a small part of a larger codex con-

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D. 253. The substantial presence of the Liber Rasielis inLubeck, Bibliothek der Hansestadt Lubeck, Math. 4o 9 suggests this is a similar case. In the caseof Gent, Centrale Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit 1021 which I have not seen, it appears to bea copy of one of the printed editions of Ps. Agrippa and so would also follow a similar pattern.

47 See Klaassen, English Manuscripts, 9-11.


taining less dubious works and, in any event, could be justified as reasonablesubjects for scientific study if not as legitimate in their own right. To com-pound this, medieval ritual magic was commonly disdained in printed sourcesin the sixteenth century while image magic had a relatively high level of ac-ceptance. In the age of witchcraft persecution, explicitly demonic magic wasclearly prone to destruction. Finally, most of the manuscripts of ritual magicwere of a low quality frequently taking the form of a personal notebook. Thus,comparatively speaking, the numbers of surviving ritual magic manuscriptsprobably represent a much larger number of original manuscripts, most ofwhich have been lost or destroyed. What the original ratio may have been isanyones guess. Second, except where great numbers of manuscripts are in-volved, such as in the case of fifteenth-century image magic manuscripts, thediscovery of a single manuscript can make a substantial difference to the fig-ures. For example, it would be silly to talk about percentages in a sample offive manuscripts when a single new manuscript would skew the data by 20%.Nonetheless, I believe the larger trends presented here are not vulnerable tosubstantial variation due to new manuscript discoveries and thus cry out forfurther examination48. What I now propose is a tentative, but I hope, usefulexploration the dramatic changes in the sixteenth century.

An Interpretation: The Ascendency of Ritual Magic and the Integration ofImage Magic

So what are we to make of this situation? It would appear that, contrary to ourcurrent understanding, the manuscripts suggest that there was not a great in-crease in interest in image magic in the sixteenth century, at least not in imagemagic as represented by the usual texts and patterns of copying and collectionin the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries. We also find that contrary tothe suggestions of Lynn Thorndike who claimed that the sixteenth century sawa diminution of interest in ritual magic, we have a continued strong level ofinterest in it49. For the most part the data assembled here supports the ideas ofNicholas Weill-Parot. The tremendous production of image magic texts in thefifteenth century confirms his claims about the great interest in the topic at thistime. It also suggests that most still clung to the chimeral dream which associ-

48 The area of this study most subject to variation due to future manuscript discoveries wouldbe that of ritual magic. Investigations of image magic have, from the time of Thorndike andCarmody, been far more thorough. The recent catalogue by Lucentini and Compagni, I testi e icodici di ermete nel medioevo, further extends and solidifies our knowledge of this literature.

49 Thorndike, History of Magic, V, 591.

186 FRANK KLAASSEN

ated image magic, despite its destinative elements, with the naturalia ratherthan with explicit forms of ritual magic. In addition, the increasing comfortwith destinative image magic in the fifteenth century is born out in the smallbut increasing number of manuscripts collecting image magic with ritualmagic in manuscripts. Yet if we wish to establish continuities with the six-teenth century, we need to look elsewhere. Whereas one would have everyreason to expect the new Ficinian synthesis to provide the basis for a renewedenthusiasm for magical images in the sixteenth century, quite the opposite ap-pears to have happened. On the other hand, one cannot argue away the popu-larity of Ficinos De vita coelitus comparanda, or even the image orientedworks of John Dee or Giordano Bruno. So, as this article concerns the greatmorass of authors, scribes, and book collectors, let us begin with them.

In his considerable collection, the late fifteenth-century Hartman Schedelhad copies of Ficinos De vita libri tres and translations of various neoplatonicworks. In addition, he had a volume of medieval image magic and two vol-umes containing three works of the notory art. While no great amount ofweight can be placed on the coincidence of these various works in this verylarge collection (i.e., this is not evidence for an involved interest in magic onSchedels part), it cannot be insignificant that of all the works of learnedmagic, the best represented is the medieval Ars notoria. In addition, it was notmerely uninformed and unintelligent lunatics who collected and copied theseworks. Not only Schedel but many other well educated university professorsand medical doctors in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are among theidentifiable owners of the old dirty magic50. Although the presence of identifi-ably Renaissance magic is surprisingly limited in sixteenth-century manu-scripts, Renaissance and medieval elements are often blended in the manu-scripts, and when Renaissance authors do appear, there is no indication thatscribes regarded them as fundamentally different kinds of writers. Pal. Lat.1394 contains an experiment for invisibility of a standard medieval nature,preceded by a passage which tries to demonstrate that this is possible. Thescribe quotes not only authorities standard to medieval authorities, such asAlbertus Magnus, but also Herodotus, Plato, Pythagoras, and Cicero51. A simi-lar Italian manuscript from the end of the fifteenth century contains a ritual inwhich the operator prays to be made like the sages of antiquity in language

50 See for example British Library, Additional 36,674. This ritual magic notebook has beenidentified as belonging to Dr John Caius, founder of Gonneville and Caius College. See also thenumerous codices containing works on magic owned by the Monks at St. Augustines Abbey atCanterbury, Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1130 (=Ashmole 341), 1161, 1170 (= CCC 221),1275, 1277 (= CCC 125), 1538, and 1545.

51 Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica, Pal. Lat. 1394, ff. 67r-74v.


very reminiscent of the Renaissance esotericists, but the same scribe alsorecords a long text on the magical power of each of the psalms, a standardcomponent in medieval ritual magic52. Similarly in Sloane 3846, a sixteenth-century British codex we find sections from Agrippas De occulta philosophiaquoted in a ritual magic collection including such works as the Liber Rasielis,De arte crucifixi (a variant of the notory art) and a variety of texts involvingspirits, but also a variety of standard image magic works such as Thabit ibnQurras De imaginibus. Another similar volume, Sloane 3850, contains a copyof the Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy spuriously attributed to Agrippa inaddition to a host of standard works of medieval ritual magic. In a final exam-ple, the sixteenth-century translator and scribe of the Liber sacer in Royal 17.A. (42) XLII used extracts from Agrippas De occulta philosophia. and otherworks to expand and supplement his translation of this classic of medievalritual magic53. So the scribes did not appear to regard medieval ritual magic asdistinct from Renaissance magic.

This pattern is not only limited to manuscripts but extends to printed vol-umes of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. The printed edition of theFourth Book of Occult Philosophy also contains works attributed to the notori-ous medieval doctor Peter of Abano and Gerard of Cremona. In the case of allsix of the editions of Agrippas Opera Omnia, published at Strasbourg andLyons around 1600, the Ars notoria, the premier ritual magic text of the middleages, is singled out and advertised on the title page as a special and valuableaddition to the two-volume set. The other added-bonus texts further reflectthis mix of Renaissance and medieval, including works attributed not only toTrithemius, but also Peter of Abano, Gerard of Cremona, and Qusta ibn Luqa.In other words, the scribes and publishers saw no strict division between theworks of the late middle ages and Renaissance. The publishers sold them in thesame volumes and evidently believed that the medieval works would promotesales. The scribes clearly took if for granted that Renaissance works could beused to supplement and expand medieval ones and copied them down next toworks of medieval ritual magic. In short, despite all the protestation of Renais-sance authors, the old dirty magic was still very much a part of Renaissancemagic.

Yet why would the rate of copying of image magic texts decrease whileritual magic persisted? This question in part hinges upon the distinguishing thehistorical meaning of a printed edition from a manuscript copy. It is my as-

52 Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 89, Sup. 38. For the passage on the psalmssee ff. 315-325. For the incantation see f. 27r.

53 Mathiesen, A 13th-Century Ritual, 145.

188 FRANK KLAASSEN

sumption that in most cases a manuscript copy is an indication of an involvedinterest in the subject; the copying of a text was time-consuming and morelikely to by carried out by a specialist. The purchase of a printed book on theother hand has much more ambiguous historical meaning. For simple financialreasons printed books had to appeal to a less specialized and more popularaudience. We might thus assume a large audience interested in magical imagesas a illustration of a world-view to which they are sympathetic, but with nopractical interest in magic at all. The engaging tone of Ficinos De vita libritres, its urbane and literate style, these are features just as important to itspopularity as its limited magical contents. In addition, many of the printedbooks including image magic significantly the De vita libri tres dedicateonly a small portion to practical image magic. An extensive popular printedliterature could thus easily exist despite the fact that the interests of engagedspecialists had shifted.

I would argue that the shift evident in patterns of manuscript copying maybe explained by commonalities between medieval ritual magic and Renais-sance magic. In addition, Renaissance scribes would have had less interest inimage magic due to a number of inherent limitations. First, image texts tend tobe limited to magic involving a small subdivision of astrological influences(e.g. lunar mansions). The instructions also tended to have relatively restrictedresults (e.g. ridding a place of scorpions, destroying a city, etc.). I recognizethe possibility that the texts could be, and were, re-worked to produce differentforms54, but as a whole the tradition is less flexible than ritual magic. Second,cosmologically speaking, the significant moment in astrological image magicoccurs with the manipulation of forms in the sublunar world. Were we tochoose a parallel layer in human microcosm, it would be that of the medicalspirits, the substance which mediates body and soul and a rough equivalent tothe rays of the stars, which mediate between the upper world and the lower.Even if spirits are invoked in the process, this is, quite simply, magic of a lowercosmological order than ritual magic which sought information, communica-tion, illumination, vision, and direct contact with the divine through explicitlyreligious and Christian rituals in which the interior condition of the operatorplayed a fundamental role. Ritual magic practitioners also sought to achieve afar more broad-reaching understanding of the cosmos on a spiritual level. Inshort, this is a magic of the soul or intellect. Ritual magic scribes could also beinterested in image magic, but their goal of achieving universal knowledge ofthis kind of practice could only be achieved through higher forms of magic

54 Weill-Parot, Les images astrologiques, 602-622.


which transcended and subsumed image magic55. Renaissance writers fromFicino to Dee similarly included image magic yet unequivocally regarded it asmiddling magic56. Their magical systems are far more expansive and inclusive.They were centrally interested in higher, more indeterminate, interiorised, andreligious forms of magic of which images were only a part. This would thenexplain why sixteenth-century scribes of ritual magic were a large percentageof those who copied image magic: they understood it as a sub-set of ritualmagic. Finally, if one actually desired to practice Renaissance magic in thisbroad sense (i.e. not merely astrological image magic), the only practical in-struction manuals available would have been the manuscripts of medievalritual magic. None of the printed works of the Renaissance authors would, inthemselves, be enough to seriously practice magic since they were usuallyvery circumspect about providing any specific instructions.

The commonalities between ritual magic and Renaissance magic can per-haps be best recognized in the figure of the magus. As in Ficino, the idealmagus in the medieval ritual magic tradition is a learned priest. His activitieswere represented as fundamentally religious in form and intent. This may beseen in practices like the Ars notoria, often collected with and even confusedwith devotional literature. Even necromantic manuals effectively require thatthe magus be clerical if they do not demand it and represent their activitiesas essentially religious, or at least moral, activities57. As in Agrippa and Dee,the magus of medieval ritual magic gains an understanding of the cosmosthrough learning but, more fundamentally, through direct intellectual contactwith the divine which willingly aids him. Through this contact and divine as-sistance, more often than not achieved by petitioning angels, he is able to dis-

55 See for example the fourteenth-century Ars notoria in Mnchen, BayerischeStaatsbibliothek, CLM 268 ad cognitionem omnium scientiarum naturalium. We can see thistradition continued in the sixteenth century in Harley 181, f. 80v, in which an Ars notoria claimsto provide not only information about the arts and sciences, but also the practice of medicine andfeatures of the functioning of the physical world including the magical power of stones.

56 For example, in Ficinos scheme the things capable of receiving celestial things are not onlyimages and medicines but the movements of the imagination, reason, and contemplation. De vitacoelitus comparanda, 22. Agrippa places image magic in the second of three books, high magicbeing in the third book of the De occulta philosophia. Although Dee was demonstrably inter-ested in image magic, the high point of Dees magical operations were his angelic conversations.See Harkness, John Dees Conversations. Despite the general failure of this book to recognizethe clear influence of medieval ritual magic upon John Dee, it remains a very strong account of avery significant portion of Dees life.

57 In one particularly extreme example a sixteenth-century manuscript justifies treasure hunt-ing by means of ritual magic. It claims that the devil guards treasure left behind by a rich man ina hidden place and will try to use it to purchase good will from God on judgement day. Theimplication is clearly that one is perfectly justified, if not morally called upon, to take it awayfrom him. Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Mus. 245, f. 1r.

190 FRANK KLAASSEN

cern truth from falsehood and penetrate many of the mysteries of the cosmos.Once again the practice of the notory art, which seeks complete knowledge ofthe arts and sciences serves as a good example. But we may also find similartendencies in the necromantic tradition in its use of demons and angels to dis-cover information, learning, and even wisdom or ability in discernment58. Fi-nally, there are also medieval antecedents for Agrippas magus cooperatingwith God. John of Morignys Liber visionumis approved for Christian use bythe Blessed Virgin since it seeks entirely good ends, intellectual and spiritualenlightenment, which in turn contribute to the worship and glory of God onearth59. The necromancers in the prologue to the Liber sacer not only operatewith Gods permission, but with divine sympathy and guidance. Angels assistthem in their efforts to preserve their art in the face of persecution by the insti-tutional church60. The resonances between the two periods are clearly verystrong and the Renaissance preference for ritual magic quite understandable.

One way of understanding these changes in the context of larger intellectualshifts would be to regard the image magic collectors and their chimeral goal ofa legitimate astrological magic as the product of the rationalist environment ofthe schools, intimately connected with the belief that the structure of the cos-mos is accessible to rational inquiry. The scribes of this tradition began withthe rationalist assumption that the truth or falsity of their magical texts couldbe established by rational means, that is, with reference to authoritative discus-sions of the natural world and by logical elaboration upon them. As one mightexpect the intellectual wave of scholastic ideas peaked, in terms of intellectualinfluence, in the centuries after the death of its great proponents, such as Tho-mas Aquinas61. It is then that we see the greatest production of manuscripts ofArabic image magic. It is into this context we may wish to place GiorgioAnselmi, Antonio de Monte Ulmi, Peter of Abano and the other late scholasticwriters whom Weill-Parot discusses. At the same time, the late middle agessaw an increasing belief that truth was not achievable through rational meansand that alternate approaches to it were not only desirable but necessary. Justas the philosophers reduced the scope of reasoned enquiry and intellectual

58 See, Klaassen., Transformations of Magic, 178-187.59 There is a tantalisingly Promethean dimension to the way John of Morigny pushes to have

the Liber visionum approved. According to him, the Blessed Virgin approves the work (evidentlywith some hesitation) because any good he sought from her assiduously and devoutly she wouldgrant. John of Morigny, Prologue, 191-192.

60 Honorius of Thebes, chosen by a council of necromancers, preserved the art of necromancyin a book which was written with angelic assistance. By finding this peaceful way to protect theirdivinely inspired art from destruction by the demonically deluded churchmen, they protect alltheir enemies from the destruction of demons. See Mathiesen, A 13th-Century Ritual, 148-149.

61 See for example Hillgarth, Who Read Thomas Aquinas?.


interests began to shift from logic to mysticism, rhetoric, and poetry, texts ofritual magic increasingly emphasized visionary experience, illumination, orrevelation and regarded this divine assistance as essential to determining truth.Late medieval ritual magic may thus be seen to flow from the same largerintellectual tendencies as nominalism, mysticism, late medieval affective pi-ety, and humanism.

The evidence I have presented here is suggestive but far from conclusive.Many more manuscripts remain to be not only examined and described, butsimply discovered. In addition, the study of late medieval ritual magic is verymuch in its infancy. Yet the culture of magic in the sixteenth century and asrepresented by magical manuscripts clearly requires further attention, in par-ticular to the transmission of the old dirty magic. It will not suffice to employprinted works as our only indicators of the world of learned magic, nor will itsuffice to assume that no connection exists between the great works of Renais-sance magic and the larger intellectual movements which made up learnedmagic in the preceding centuries. At the very least we must regard medievalritual magic as a fundamental part of the context into which Renaissancemagic was born and a fundamental feature of magical practice in the sixteenthcentury. Yet perhaps we might go further and regard Renaissance magic asmedieval ritual magic which has subsumed image magic and been transformedin original ways under the influence of a variety of late antique texts.

Frank Klaassen (1963) is Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of Saskatch-ewan.

Bibliography

Al-kindi, De radiis (M.T. dAlverny & F. Hudry, eds.), Archives dhistoire doctrinale etlittraire du moyen-age 41 (1974), 139-260.

Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlandsund der Schweiz, Mnchen: Beck 1928.

Boudet, J.-P., Lars notoria au Moyen Age: un rsurgence de la thurgie antique? in: A. Moreauand J.-C. Turpin (eds.), La magie (Actes du colloque international de Montpellier, 25-27mars 1999), Montpellier 2002.

Burnett, C., Scandinavian Runes in a Latin Magical Treatise, Speculum 58:2 (1983), 419-429., Adelard, Ergaphalau and the Science of the Stars, in: C. Burnett (ed.), Adelard of Bath:

An English Scientist and Arabist of the Early Twelfth Century, London: Warburg Institute1987, 133-145.

, C., Arabic, Greek, and Latin Works on Astrological Magic Attributed to Aristotle, in: J.Kraye, W.F. Ryan and C.B. Schmitt (eds.), Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages, London:Warburg Institute 1987.

, Magic and Divination in the Middle Ages: Texts and Techniques in the Islamic and Chris-tian Worlds, Aldershot, Great Britain; Brookfield, Vt.: Variorum 1996.

Butler, E.M., Ritual Magic, University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press 1998.

192 FRANK KLAASSEN

Celenza, C., Late Antiquity and Florentine Platonism: The Post-Plotinian Ficino, in: M.J.B.Allen & V. Rees (eds.), Marsilio Ficino: This Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy,Leiden: Brill 2002, 71-97.

Clucas, S., Non Est Legendum Sed Inspicendum Solum: Inspectival Knowledge and theVisual Logic of John Dees Liber Mysteriorum, in: A. Adams and S.J. Linden (eds.), Em-blems and Alchemy, Glasgow: Glasgow Emblem Studies 1998, 109-132.

Clucas, S., Regiment Animarum Et Corporum: The Body and Spacial Practice in Medieval andRenaissance Magic, in: D.G. Taunton and N. Taunton (eds.), The Body in Late Medievaland Early Modern Culture, Aldershot: Ashgate 1999, 113-129.

Couliano, I.P., Eros and Magic in the Renaissance, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1987.Dupbe, J., LArs notoria et la polmique sur la divination et la magie, in Divination et

controverse religieuse en France au xvie sicle, Paris: Ecole normale suprieure de jeunesfilles 1987, 122-134.

Fanger, C. (ed.), Conjuring Spirits : Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic, UniversityPark, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press 1998.

, Plundering the Egyptian Treasure: John the Monk, His Book of Visions, and Its Relationto the Notory Art of Solomon, in: Fanger, Conjuring Spirits, 216-249.

Ferguson, J., Bibliographical Notes on the Treatises De Occulta Philosophia and DeIncertitudine et Vanitate Scientiarum of Cornelius Agrippa, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Bib-liographical Society 1924.

Gutirrez, P. David, De antiquis ordinis eremitarum Sancti Augustini bibliothecis, Rome:Analectica Augustiniana, 1955.

Harkness, Deborah, John Dees Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End ofNature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.

Hillgarth, J.N., Who read Thomas Aquinas? (Etienne Gilson Series 13), Toronto: Pontifical Insti-tute of Medieval Studies 1992.

Humphreys, K.W. (ed.), The Friars Libraries, London: British Library in association with theBritish Academy 1990.

James, M.R., The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover. The Catalogues of the Librariesof Canterbury and Dover, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1903.

John of Morigny, Prologue to the Liber Visionum [c. 1304-1318], Claire Fanger & NicholasWatson, ed. and transl. with introduction, Esoterica III (2001), 108-217. http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIII/Morigny.html

Kieckhefer, R., Magic in the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989., Erotic Magic in Medieval Europe, in: J.E. Salisbury (ed.), Sex in the Middle Ages: A

Book of Essays, New York: Garland Pub. 1991, xv, 258., The Holy and the Unholy: Sainthood, Witchcraft, and Magic in Late Medieval Europe,

Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 23 (1994), 355-385., The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic, American Historical Review 99 (1994),

813-836., Forbidden Rites : A Necromancers Manual of the Fifteenth Century, Stroud: Sutton

1997., The Devils Contemplatives: The Liber Iuratus, the Liber Visionum, and Christian Appro-

priation of Jewish Occultism, in: Fanger, Conjuring Spirits, 250-265.Klaassen, F., English Manuscripts of Ritual Magic 1300-1500: A Preliminary Survey, in:

Fanger, Conjuring Spirits, 3-31., Religion, Science, and the Transformations of Magic: Manuscripts of Magic 1300-1600 ,

PhD diss., University of Toronto 1999.Lucentini, Paolo & Vittoria Perrone Compagni, I testi e i codici di Ermete nel Medioevo,

Firenze: Polistampa 2001.Marqus-Rivire, J., Amulettes, talismans et Pantacles dans les traditions orientales et

occidentales, Paris: Payot 1972.

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIII/Morigny.htmlhttp://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIII/Morigny.htmlhttp://gessler.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0002-8762^281994^2999L.813[aid=5147913]http://gessler.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0002-8762^281994^2999L.813[aid=5147913]


Mathiesen, R., A 13th-Century Ritual to Attain the Beatific Vision from the Sworn Book ofHonorius of Thebes, in: Fanger, Conjuring Spirits, 143-162.

Nauert, Charles G., Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought (Illinois Studies in the SocialSciences 55), Urbana: University of Illinois Press 1965.

Page, S., Magic at St. Augustines, Canterbury, in the Late Middle Ages. PhD diss., WarburgInstitute, University of London, 2000.

Pellegrin, E., La bibliothque des Visconti et des Sforza, ducs de Milan, au XVe sicle, Paris,Service des publications du C.N.R.S. 1955.

Pingree, D., Some of the Sources of the Ghayat Al-Hakim, Journal of the Warburg andCourtauld Institutes 43 (1980), 1-15.

, Between the Ghaya and the Picatrix I: The Spanish Version, Journal of the Warburg andCourtauld Institutes 44 (1981), 27-56.

, Picatrix: The Latin Version of the Ghayat Al-Hakim , London: The Warburg Institute 1986., The Diffusion of Arabic Magical Texts in Western Europe, in: (ed.), La Diffusione Delle

Scienze Islamiche Nel Medio Evo Europeo, Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 1987,57-102.

, Learned Magic in the Time of Frederick II, in: Micrologus 2 (1994), 42-43.Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols., New York: Columbia

University Press 1929-1958.Travaglia, Pinella, Magic, Causality and Intentionality: The Doctrine of Rays in al-Kindi,

Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo 1999.Veenstra, J.R., Cataloguing Superstition: A Paradigmatic Shift in the Art of Knowing the Fu-

ture, in: P. Binkley (ed.), Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts : Proceedings of the SecondComers Congress, Groningen, 1-4 July 1996, Leiden, New York: Brill 1997, 169-180.

Watson, N., John the Monks Book of the Visions of the Blessed and Undefiled Virgin Mary,Mother of God: Two Versions of a Newly-Discovered Ritual Magic Text, in: Fanger, Con-juring Spirits, 163-215.

Weill-Parot, N., Les images astrologiques au Moyen ge et a la Renaissance, Paris: HonoreChampion 2002.

Yates, F., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press1964.

Zambelli, Paola, The Speculum Astronomiae and its Enigma: Astrology, Theology and Sciencein Albertus Magnus and his Contemporaries (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science135), Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer 1992.

Manuscripts:

The following are the codices of image and ritual magic which formed the basis for my data. Thisis not a comprehensive list. Rather I include only those which I have either personally examinedor have a reliable description or dating. Those preceded by an asterisk are codices knownthrough medieval catalogues, if they survive, their modern shelfmarks are listed in parentheses.Similarly where surviving manuscripts are identifiable in medieval catalogues, the medievalcatalogue reference follows the modern one in parentheses.

The numbering given for manuscripts held in medieval libraries listed below correspond to thefollowing modern editions. For Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, see James, Ancient Libraries.For York, Library of the Austin Friars, see Humphreys, Friars Libraries. For Milan, Library ofthe Sforza and Visconti Families, see Elizabeth Pellegrin, Bibliotheque des Visconti et desSforza. For Nurnberg, Library of Hartman Schedel and Erfurt, Amplonian Library, seeBayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge. For Rome,conv. S. Mariae de Populo, see P. David Gutirrez, De antiquis ordinis eremitarum SanctiAugustini bibliothecis.

194 FRANK KLAASSEN

Manuscripts of Image Magic

Thirteenth CenturyCanterbury, Abbey of St. Augustine 1130

(=Ashmole 341)Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana,

Plut. 30, Cod. 29Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 341

(=Canterbury, Abbey of St. Augustine1130)

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 79Oxford, Bodleian Library, Selden Supra 76

(Bernard 3464).Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 8454Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 16204

Fourteenth CenturyCambridge, Corpus Christi College 243Cambridge, University Library Ff. vi. 53

(1391)Cambridge, University Library, Gg. vi. 3.*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1170 (=

CCC 221)Edinburgh, Royal Observatory Cr.3.29.Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Amplo-

nian Collection, Folio 380Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Amplo-

nian Collection, Quarto 174Erlangen, Universittsbiliothek, Hs. 434London, British Library, Arundel 342London, British Library, Harley 1612London, British Library, Harley 80London, British Library, Royal 12. C. XVIIILondon, British Library, Royal 12. E. XXVLondon, British Library, Royal 12. F. VILondon, Wellcome Institute for the History of

Science, Wellcome 116Lyon, Bibliothque Municipale 328Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A. 183. inf.Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M. 28. sup.Mnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm

10268Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 1471Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 463. (2456.

115.)Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 67

(Bernard 2136)Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 193Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 228Oxford, Corpus Christi 221(=St. Augustines

Abbey 1170)Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 7316A

Citt del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica, Pal.Lat. 1116

Citt del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica, Pal.Lat. 1381

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, lat.XIV. 174 (4606)

*York, Austin Friars A8 362*York, Austin Friars A8 364*York, Austin Friars A8 375*York, Austin Friars A8 383

Fifteenth CenturyBerlin, Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Cod.

Elect. 964Boston, Medical Library (Countway Library

of Medicine), 7Cambridge, University Library Dd. xi. 45*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1161*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1275*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1277 (=

CCC 125)*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1538*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1545Edinburgh, Royal Observatory Cr.3.14.Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek,

Amplonian Collection, Quarto 361*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 11

(22.8).*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 12.

(22.14)*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 31.





(21.31)Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana,

Plut. 30, Cod. 24Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana,

Plut. 89, Sup. 38Firenze, Biblioteca Riccarciana 1165Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di

Firenze, II-iii-214Gent, Centrale Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversi-

teit 5 (416)Ghent 5 (Saint Genois 416)Glasgow, Huterian Museum Library V.6.18

(=Gen. 468)


Klagenfurt, Bischflich Bibliothek, HSXXXI.b.7

Kbenhavn (Copenhagen), KongelikeBibliotek Gl. Kgl. S. 1658

Kbenhavn (Copenhagen), Kongelike Biblio-tek Gl. Kgl. S. 3499

Krakow, Jagiellonian University Library 793(DD III 36)

London, British Library, Cotton Julius, D. VIII.London, British Library, Sloane 1784London, British Library, Sloane 312London, Institution of Electrical Engineers,

Thompson Collection S.C. MSS 3/5.London, Society of Antiquaries of London 39London, Wellcome Institute for the History of

Science, Wellcome 117London, Wellcome Institute for the History of

Science, Wellcome 128London, Wellcome Institute for the History of

Science, Wellcome 560 (MiscellaneaMedical XXXVI)

London, Wellcome Institute for the History ofScience, Wellcome 510

Mnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM214



*Nurnberg, Benedictine Abbey of St Agigien,L11 (497,9f)

*Nurnberg, Hartmann Schedel, 808, 19-809, 3Ottobeuren, Bibliothek der Benediktiner

Abtei, O. 86Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon. Misc. 285Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 194Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 37Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 57Oxford, Corpus Christi College 125 (=Canter-

bury, St Augustines Abbey, 1277)Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 7282Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 7337Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 10272Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 17178Praha, Universitn knihovna 629 (IV.C.2.)Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,

Pal. Lat. 1330Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,

Pal. Lat. 1340Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,

Pal. Lat. 1354

Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,Pal. Lat. 1369



Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,Pal. Lat. 1445b


Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,Vat. Lat. 10803

Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,Vat. Lat. 4085

Weimar, Thuringische Landesbibliothek O 95Wien, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek

3317 (Philos. 156)Wien, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek,

3394

Sixteenth CenturyCambridge, University Library Kk. I. 1.Cambridge, University Library, Additional

3544Conte de Sarzana, Private Library, Unnum-

beredDarmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hoch-

schulbibliothek 1410Darmstadt, Hessische Landes-und

Hochschulbibliothek 326 (630)Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di

Firenze, Magliabechi XX 20Gent, Centrale Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversi-

teit 1021London, British Library, Sloane 3822London, British Library, Sloane 3846London, British Library, Sloane 3847Lubeck, Bibliothek der Hansestadt Lubeck,

Math. 4o 8Lubeck, Bibliothek der Hansestadt Lubeck,

Math. 4o 9Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 244Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canonicanus

latinus 500Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 346Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Mus. 173Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D. 253Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 17871Praha, Nardoni Muzeum 2843 (XI A 19)

196 FRANK KLAASSEN

Seventeenth and Eighteenth CenturyBratislav. Univerzitnej Kniznice, MS 1167 (E

796)Duke of Northumberland 589Hamburg, Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek,

fol. 188Leipzig, Stadtsbibliothek 742 (DCCXLII)London, British Library, Sloane 1302London, British Library, Sloane 1306London, British Library, Sloane 3679London, British Library, Sloane 3826London, British Library, Sloane 3850London, British Library, Sloane 3851London, British Library, Sloane 3853London, British Library, Sloane 3883London, Wellcome Institute for the History of

Science, Wellcome 426Paris, Bibliothque de lArsenal 1033Paris, Bibliothque nationale, fran. 14788Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 10273Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 13017Paris, Bibliothque nationale, lat. 7340Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,

Reginensis latinus 1344Wien, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek

11381

Manuscripts of Ritual Magic

Thirteenth CenturyLondon, British Library, Sloane 1712New Haven, Yale University Library, Mellon

Collection MS 1.Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lyell Empt. I

Fourteenth CenturyGraz, Universittsbibliothek MS 1016Kbenhavn (Copenhagen), Kongelike Biblio-

tek Ny kgl. S. 218Kues, Hospitalbibliothek 116London, British Library, Additional 18027London, British Library, Sloane 313London, British Library, Sloane 3854Mnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM

268Vaticano (Citt del), Biblioteca Apostolica,

Pal. Lat. 1363Wien, Schottenkloster 61 (50. g. 4.)*York, Austin Friars 8A, 371*York, Austin Friars A8 362*York, Austin Friars A8 364

Fifteenth CenturyBasel, Universittsbibliothek B VII I*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1538 (cf.

1603)*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 1603 (cf.

1538)*Canterbury, St Augustines Abbey, 767

(D.8.G.6)Edinburgh, Royal Observatory Cr.3.14.*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 14.

(22.32) (=Octavo 84.)*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 15.

(22.36) (=Quarto 380)*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 50.


(40.18) = (Erfurt, Amplon. Octavo 79)*Erfurt, Collegium Amplonianum, Math. 8

(21.24)Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana,

Plut. 89, Sup. 38Firenze, Biblloteca Nazionale Centrale di

Firenze, II-iii-214Graz, Universittsbibliothek 680Kbenhavn (Copenhagen), Kongelike

Bibliotek Gl. Kgl. S. 3499London, British Library, Sloane 3008London, British Library, Sloane 314London, British Library, Sloane 513London, Society of Antiquaries of Lond

Download - Medieval Ritual Magic in the Renaissance

Top Related