Old Version of Sigillum Dei Aemeth

asterion · 11-21-2009, 08:25 AM

I m not into enochian magic, so i don t use Dee s seal. I m looking for people that use the old form , described in Liber Juratus. I am constructing one , and i d like to pick your mind on the subject. Many of the old drawings are quite corrupt.

Kaizer · 11-22-2009, 10:49 AM

Go to Joseph Peterson's esoteric archives, he has some reconstructions of the seal, and alot of commentary on Liber Juratus. I really wish he would do his next book on this grimoire.

**Caliban** · 11-22-2009, 11:20 PM

No, I am afraid I do not have a source for this - but it seems to be reasonably intact:

Hope this is some help.

somewhere forgotten · 11-23-2009, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaizer

Go to Joseph Peterson's esoteric archives, he has some reconstructions of the seal, and alot of commentary on Liber Juratus. I really wish he would do his next book on this grimoire.

Although it is a help, I would bare in mind that it is once mans opinion. I for one disagree on a few points that he makes. For example his remark on the angels seals being added and not the originals, even tho they contradict with the Heptameron that he says is probably where they got them from. His entire reason is just that they look similar which as written mid 13th century like the heptameron they obviously would, and the fact that only one version has them. He thereby seems to conclude that they must be added?? I beg to differ sir. out of all the copies im sure that one was copied enough in tact to include the seals. Coincidently Casziel was written Aasziel but was changed as a mistake as it didnt follow the line of text naming him correctly. This would suggest that the 'Seal of the true and living God' is in itself copied from an earlier source, most likely mistaking an uncapitolised c for an a. A clearer example of this is the Grand Pentacle of the Key of Solomon. Where it has again either been preserved as a 'Aassiel' or mispelt.

asterion · 11-23-2009, 11:42 AM

Kaizer, i ve been there, thats my primary source. I ve seen all his beatyfull reproductions, and most of them are quite different due to their age.
I ve reconstructed my own version of the Sigillum, and i ve done my own corrections.

I ve replaced Anael with Haniel, Satquiel with Tsadqiel, and Cassiel with Tsaphqiel.

Caliban, the seal is from Peterson s page, but not as old as the Liber Juratus.

Somwhere forgotten: your post is a bit hazy but i take it you have a thing with Peterson s oppinions on the origins.

Liber Juratus draws a lot from the Book of Raziel, and so does the Heptameron.

aasziel is not a corruption of Casziel. Nor is Aziel ,Asasiel, Assiel or Azziel.

The name Cassiel was a corrupt fort of Cafsiel. The long S in English print or handstyle was mistook for an S, so Cafsiel would be read CaSsiel.

Cafsiel in turn is the angel Kaphsiel, of Saturn, evolved from the merkabah tradition, Tsaphkiel. Somewhere along the line, Ts Ph Q became Q Ph Ts, Tsafqiel became Qaphtsiel.

He has nothing to do with Assiel, Read Cephar Raziel, or Liber solomonis, on Don Karr s page.

asterion · 11-23-2009, 01:00 PM

here s a picture of my version. Pleasy, do not use without permission, it was a great deal of work both researching and digitally building it from scratch...

asterion · 11-23-2009, 01:03 PM

the photo option is not working, try this

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/inde...mageID=8374271

somewhere forgotten · 11-24-2009, 01:32 AM

I think that you mistook what I was saying. I am not saying anything to do with Azaziel or such. I was saying that in the particular seal which you asked opinion about, the name Cassiel is spelt with an A in both the Liber Juratus and the Key of Solomon, although Peterson has corrected it to be a C in his reconstruction of the seal in the Juratus. Thereby in that respect it is a corruption. make of it what you will. As for an f being taken as an s i entirely agree, tho Im not sure how that was anything to do with my post.
I do have issues with his origins in that perticular part however thnk on whole the man himself gives good insight and have talked to him directly about some of the changes he has made elsewhere.

I have observed your seal. It is very well done. Be careful that the alterations in names are not always corruptions but translations. As people further mixed better translations were given to meet the originals. the links between the name tsafkiel becoming cassiel is weak at best. other than that its good

asterion · 11-24-2009, 03:39 AM

the rotacisation process in Tsaphqiel-Kaphtsiel is well documented and has been the subject of scrutinty for people far more knowlegeble in kabbala than myself. The link between Kaphtsiel and Kafsiel is only natural.

vooan · 11-24-2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somewhere forgotten

I think that you mistook what I was saying. I am not saying anything to do with Azaziel or such. I was saying that in the particular seal which you asked opinion about, the name Cassiel is spelt with an A in both the Liber Juratus and the Key of Solomon, although Peterson has corrected it to be a C in his reconstruction of the seal in the Juratus. Thereby in that respect it is a corruption.

It's not a corruption, it appears as either Cafziel or Casziel in all versions of Liber Juratus: see Gosta Hedegard's critical edition of the text, pp. 68 and 155. Since Hedegard compiled his version, another mid-fourteenth century manuscript has been located which renders the name 'Cafzyel.' The composition of the seal as described in this manuscript is the subject of an article due to be published next year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by somewhere forgotten

For example his remark on the angels seals being added and not the originals, even tho they contradict with the Heptameron that he says is probably where they got them from. His entire reason is just that they look similar which as written mid 13th century like the heptameron they obviously would, and the fact that only one version has them. He thereby seems to conclude that they must be added?? I beg to differ sir.

Peterson's reproduction is based on the sixteenth century manuscript Royal Axlii. As this is the only version of Liber Juratus to contain these additions, and there are no known manuscripts of the Heptameron that predate the sixteenth century, it's more likely these seals were taken from the printed edition of the Heptameron, first published with Agrippa's works in 1559.