Page 14 (part 2)

I do not propose to be the historian of Magic, whether Black or White, or the classifier of its MSS. All occultism is part of the path of descent, and that which is especially Black may be in one sense the least harmful, as we know where we are in its presence. I will therefore only add in termination of this question that in the eighteenth century the Abbé d'Artigny mentions various examples of the Key of Solomon in Latin, and also an edition printed in 1655, which is not only unknown to Mr. Mathers, but seemingly to all modern bibliographers. Leaving the language of the original an open question, it is clear that, in either case, there is no ground for attributing to the Key of Solomon in its present form a higher antiquity than the fourteenth or fifteenth century, at which time Hebrew literature was developing at a rapid rate. If it were first written in Latin, it is, at any rate, permeated with late Jewish ideas, and the corrupt state of the Hebrew in the conjurations and talismans--which is much the same, and that as bad as it can be, in all existing copies--could scarcely have been attained in less than two centuries of careless and ignorant transcription. We may therefore fix the date of its manufacture, or otherwise of its translation, about the period which has been mentioned. The attribution of the work to Solomon is obvious enough; it could not fail to have suggested itself to a compiler with Kabalistic leanings and with a knowledge of Jewish tradition from the days of the Talmud onward. Further, it is quite consistent with a literature which has done nothing but ascribe falsely. That it should be taken seriously by any well-equipped person at the present day must, of course, be quite inscrutable, and in respect of the English editor, those who feel concerned in the question may account for it in one of two ways:--by a predisposition to accept statements on the faith of occult tradition following upon a conviction as to the reality of occult science, or, alternatively, by a knowledge derived from the traditions of initiation. The first is regrettable because it is open to abuse, which is stating the case in terms of unstrained mercy; the second is not likely to exist, because it is injurious to the intelligence of the King of Israel to suppose that he wrote the Clavicle. I do not feel clear, however, that it would be beneath certain storehouses of occult tradition to ratify the ascription or to make archives to support it. In sum, it would be quite in accordance with the mind of occult initiation to transmit a false tradition or to manufacture it. So far concerning the antiquity of the work and the sovereign mystification of its authorship. It remains now to say something of its character. The Key of Solomon can scarcely be judged accurately in the light of its English version, for the translator, preternaturally regarding it as a highly honourable memorial of lawful magic, has excised as much as possible the Goëtic portions, on the ground that they are later interpolations, which is of course arbitrary. He still retains, however, what is generally stigmatised as one of the distinctive marks of Black Magic; the ritual is permeated with the bloody sacrifice, which Mr. Mathers rightly condemns, but has not seen his way to reject. His version further includes various references to the performance of works of hatred and destruction--that is, works betraying an evil purpose, or a purpose directly connecting with Black Magic. The chapter detailing the method of effecting such objects is omitted, but it is found in five out of the seven codices upon which the version is based. Furthermore, where the intention is not evil, it is frivolous, hyperbolical or paramountly foolish.