REVIEWING THE TRITHEMIAN

CONJURATION

polyphanes
 Reviewing the Trithemian Conjuration

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 The Tools of the Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 The Crystal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 The Pedestal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 The Table of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.4 The Lamen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.5 The Wand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.6 The Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
2.7 The Candles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.8 The Brazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2.9 “Thy Little Book” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.10 The Magic Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3 On Constructions and Consecrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.1 Lamens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.2 Wand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.3 Crystal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.4 Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.5 Pedestal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.6 Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.7 Ring of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3.8 Incense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.9 Vessel for Incense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.10 Candles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.11 Candle Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.12 Book of Spirits (Liber Spirituum), Pen, and Ink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
3.13 Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4 Ritual Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.1 Attire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.2 Purification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
5 The Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5.1 The Altar of Conjuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.2 The Altar and the Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.3 Orienting the Altar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
5.4 Items on the Altar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.5 Timing the Ritual and Pre-Ritual Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.6 The Lamen as an Altar Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

1
6 The Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
6.1 Pre-Ritual Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
6.2 Consecration of the Scryer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
6.3 Consecration of the Crystal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.4 Consecration of the Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.5 Consecration of the Incense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.6 Conjuration of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.7 Authentication and Oath of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.8 Communion with the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6.9 Dismissal of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6.10 Closing the Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.11 Post-Ritual Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
7 What to Do Now that the Spirit is Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.1 Advice and Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.2 Suggestions and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8 What to Do for Non-Angelic Spirits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
8.1 Genii Natorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
8.2 Genii Locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.3 Demons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
9 What to Do when Things Go Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
9.1 When the Spirit Won’t Show Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
9.2 When the Spirit You Get Isn’t the One You Wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.3 When the Spirit You Get Isn’t who They Say They Are . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.4 When the Spirit You Get Won’t Swear Their Help to You . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.5 When the Spirit Just Won’t Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
10 Dechristianizing DSIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
11 Summary, Recap, and Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
11.1 Comments and Reflections on the Original Posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
11.2 Further Lines of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
11.3 Text-Based Ritual Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
11.4 Spurious or Other Ritual Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
11.5 Recommended Designs of Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
11.6 Personal Recommendations on Implementing DSIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
12 Notes from Barrett Himself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
A Other Prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
A.1 Prayer of Anointing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
A.2 Prayer of the Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
A.3 Prayer of Joseph the Visionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
B Old Angelic Conjuration Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

2
Preface
The present text is not normally I would have put to paper in any formal capacity, nor is it one
I ever thought I would have written. What was originally conceived to be a single blog post on
my website, The Digital Ambler 1 , eventually got to be so long a post that I decided it might be
better to break it out into two posts, which then became three, which then became five, which
then. . . well, ended up becoming 23 in all. I only wanted to talk about a particular design choice
used in the nowadays well-known “Trithemian conjuration ritual”, specifically the use of the four
archangels versus the four demon princes on the table, but there ended up being so much to talk
about to even get to that point that I needed to explain, and by the time I did that, I decided I
may as well go on and write about the entire rest of the ritual, critiquing every aspect of the ritual,
seeing where its grimoiric origins lie in older magical texts in the Western Solomonic and Hermetic
traditions, and how various modern magicians have applied it in all their own ways. It eventually
came out to be the equivalent of a doctoral thesis on the whole ritual—not what I had planned to
write, but one I happily took to all the same.
The whole series of posts went up in the late spring and early summer of 2019, and has already
proven to be some of the most popular posts on my already long-running blog on magic and the
occult. As I stated at the end of the series, I had no desire to turn it into a book or publication,
mostly to save myself the headaches of referring to a number of other magicians’ blogs and the
copyright issues that would ensue from the liberal use of their own pictures and designs, but my
good friend and colleague Dr. Alexander Cummins2 convinced me to at least make a PDF-friendly
copy of the posts for those who wished to print them out easily. I decided to take his advice, copy
all my posts from my blog, reformat it into LATEX, and put it out for those who wanted something
more gentle on their printers.
Thus, the present document. Replicating the original blog-based format of the text required
some changes; the post intros and outros have been removed, the division of text has been changed
around slightly, links to other websites are replicated at the appropriate places as footnotes, and
some images and their accompanying text are shifted around to places they may not have been
so as to allow for a smoother read, but referred to accordingly as necessary throughout the text.
Unfortunately, due to the shift in medium, I have not been able to preserve comments that were
on the original posts; the reader is encouraged to check out my website for such post-specific dialog
where they appear.
I hope, dear reader, that you’ll forgive me any mistakes or oversights in the present text, whether
due to formatting or my own lack of research and knowledge, and that it can help you in better
understanding and applying this simple yet effective ritual of conjuring spirits and angels. Since the
original posts are available on my blog for free3 , I find it likewise appropriate that this document
also be put out for free so that anyone and everyone who has an interest in this ritual and practice
of drawing spirits into crystals can have as strong a foundation and understanding of it as possible.
I may yet write my own proper book one day on the subject, in the “formal bookvoice” I would
normally use as opposed to my “informal blogvoice”, but for now, I hope that this will suffice.

Sam Block (polyphanes)

Manassas, Virginia
October 23, 2019
1 https://digitalambler.com/
2 http://www.alexandercummins.com/
3 https://digitalambler.com/tag/reviewing-the-trithemian-conjuration/

3
Figure 1: The schema for the tools from DSIC.

4
1 Introduction
I do take it as something of a badge of honor that Fr. Rufus Opus4 ) (or, to save keystrokes, of
which there are many coming up, Fr. RO, and don’t worry, there are yet even more abbreviations
to come here) claims that I’m one of the inheritors to his old Red Work courses, as he said recently
on his Facebook page:5

Sam Block6 is one of the few I’ve officially endorsed to carry on the Red Work series
of Courses, one of my favorite people, and a presence in some of my favorite memories.
Also introduced me to Hendrick’s. Good stuff.
I don’t talk a lot about the student-teacher thing, I think it’s pedantic. Literally pa-
tronizing, so yuck.
But I’ve learned so much from my so-called students over the years, and Sam is one of
the ones at the top of the list of people who taught me as much or more than I ever
showed them in my bumbling excitement.
Talk to the man some time. You come away richer.

I don’t mean to start off this post to puff myself up or to make myself seem like some grand
poobah of high mucketymuck, but to remind myself that his Red Work Courses (RWC) is where I
really began my formal studies into Hermeticism and Renaissance-style magic specifically and the
occult generally. It’s been about four years since Fr. RO stopped teaching his RWC, about the
same time he released his Seven Spheres 7 (SS) book and a little before he himself got formally into
Thelema and the A∴A∴. I know his coursework pretty thoroughly—I’ve gone through it a number
of times over the years, taking notes and charting my own progress and seeing where I and he
differ—and given my recent quasi-ministry of occult and spiritual Q-and-A through Curious Cat,8
I’ve had plenty of reasons recently to go back even more, just to make sure I know what I’m saying
versus what Fr. RO might have been saying through me all this time, even when he and I agree.
One of the things that a good number of people have asked me, both through Curious Cat and
through email and through Facebook, involves the topic of the specific tools of conjuration that
Fr. RO suggests to use in SS. He developed SS as a distillation of the Green Work section of RWC,
and though it definitely brought an easy-to-use easily-accessible easily-applicable form of Hermetic
planetary magic to the masses. . . well, I have my issues with it, sometimes in terms of quality (I’ve
spotted a number of outright editorial errors that should have been caught with even a modicum
of proofreading), but also in terms of content. While SS serves as a distillation of RWC, I think
that he distilled it way too far, and a lot of really good information that was in RWC that would
have been useful to the reader of SS just wasn’t there. As a result, I’ve had to take on students
and consultees who want some mentorship on the SS approach to magic, correcting some things,
clarifying others, and giving my own thoughts on yet other topics.
On top of what people are asking me about his SS approach, there’s also my own recent work
involving me constructing this new Hermetic devotional practice based on the four archangels and
four prophets of geomancy, which is so widely-encompassing I don’t know if I can even call it
4 http://headforred.blogspot.com/
5 https://www.facebook.com/ropocalypse/posts/2421639144521548
6 https://www.facebook.com/polyphanes
7 https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Spheres-RUFUS-OPUS/dp/0990568709
8 https://curiouscat.me/polyphanes

5
“focused on geomancy” anymore. I’ve been writing and compiling and editing and adjusting prayer
after prayer after prayer after prayer into something that really is My Own Thing. I’m excited
about it, but it’s also a source of no small amount of consternation. What, exactly, do I want to
keep from before? What do I want to keep the same? What do I want to rewrite or adjust (of the
things that I know back-to-front, up, down, and seven-ways-to-Sunday) to fit more cleanly in this
new mode of working and contemplating? One of those things is how I do planetary work, and
what’s next on the list is planetary conjurations themselves. I could keep the same script I’ve been
using for years—originally the RWC script, then updated for my own less Christian and slightly
more Hermetic ways9 —but why not adopt and adapt that, too, in ways that actually work?
For that, I need to really dig back into the technology and techniques of that conjuration ritual,
and that ritual is, of course, The Art of Drawing Spirits Into Crystals 10 (DSIC). Many who are
familiar with it either read it directly from Esoteric Archives,11 came by it through Fr. RO in either
RWC or SS, or came by it through Fr. Ashen Chassan12 by means of his book Gateways Through
Stone and Circle 13 (Fr. AC and GTSC, respectively). And while it’s all fundamentally the same
ritual, Fr. RO and Fr. AC have some differing approaches to the text, the former through a looser
and more freewheeling style and the latter from a stricter, grimoirically accurate approach. These
differences have produced no small amount of discussion and debate over the years online and in
person, sometime just being aesthetic differences and sometimes getting into some really serious
cosmological ones. Given that I want to update my own approach to this ritual, I figured I’d delve
in a bit deeper than I otherwise might have and actually investigate what’s what instead of just
sticking with the same-old same-old.
Just to warn you, this turned out to be, well. . . a considerably longer investigation than I an-
ticipated. I figured I’d just write a single post and be done with it, but as these things turn out,
there’s just too much to actually cover within a single reasonably-long post. There’s going to be
several, put out over the next few days, and we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. What I want to
focus on, specifically, is to actually review the specific implements and process that DSIC instructs
us to use, what’s actually being used by real magicians out there, and figure out what misses the
mark, what can be legitimate alternatives according to different interpretations of the text itself,
what can be reasonable alternatives, and the like, and one of the easiest things to start with is the
actual tools of DSIC itself.
First up? The Table of Practice. This is the most complicated part of the whole Trithemian
method of conjuration given in DSIC for a number of reasons, and there’s several ways we can
interpret what DSIC says about how to construct it, so we’ll tackle this beast of a topic first before
getting into the rest of the tools and method given in DSIC.
Let’s start with what I’ve got, shall we? The Table of Practice is something that Fr. RO
instructed us to develop in the Black Work part of his RWC, and I made my own back in early
201114 from a simple pine placard and woodburning kit from Michaels, and even documented how
I did it15 for posterity’s sake as well as showing others how I did it. The design given in figure 2
matches what Fr. RO taught in RWC. The general guidelines for designing this tool consist of:
9 See appendix B.
10 http://www.esotericarchives.com/tritheim/trchryst.htm
11 http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm
12 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/
13 https://www.amazon.com/Gateways-Through-Stone-Circle-Chassan/dp/0983063931/
14 https://digitalambler.com/2011/04/20/update-on-ritual-tools-crystal-ball-and-lamen/
15 https://digitalambler.com/materia/table-of-practice/

6
 • Three concentric circles
• An equilateral triangle circumscribed by the innermost circle
• A Maltese cross, a hexagram with Hebrew letter Yod inside, and a pentagram in the corners
of the triangle

• Between the outermost and middle circle, the glyphs of the seven planets and the names of
each planet’s angel
• Between the middle and innermost circle, the names of the four elemental archangels

Images of the original table I had made are given in figure 3. I used this table for a good
number of years, before auctioning it off as part of a raffle I held one year as part of a fundraiser
for St. Cyprian. By that point, however, I had already made an updated version for my own
purposes, one that added another ring of names of the zodiacal angels around the outside, added
the three holy names YHVH Elohim Tzabaoth in Hebrew around the triangle (based on research of
back-translating the divine names from the Lemegeton Goetia Triangle of Art16 ), and rewrote all
the names in Hebrew instead of some being in Hebrew script and some being in Latin script. The
resulting design is shown in figure 4. Treating myself, and getting used to a flexshaft and diamond-
bit tips, I engraved the whole thing into a sweet score of a granite cheeseboard in excellent condition
from a thrift store; the result is shown in figure 5. I’ve used this design for a good number of years
now (since like 2013 or 2014), and I’ve gotten excellent work done by it ever since.
Now that I’ve introduced my background and my own version of the Table of Practice, let’s see
what the original text says. But, first, what exactly is the original text? The text itself is begun with
the title “Of the making of the Crystal and the Form of Preparation for a Vision”, from “The Magic
and Philosophy of Trithemius of Spanheim; containing his Book of Secret Things, and Doctrine
of Spirits”. This text appears as part IV of Francis Barret’s 1801 work The Magus, or Celestial
Intelligencer.17 Although the title page for the Trithemian section (from pages 129 through 140)
says that it was “translated from a valuable Latin manuscript by Francis Barrett” and “never yet
published in the English Language”, such a provenance is specious at best. “Trithemius of Spanheim”
refers to Johannes Trithemius, born Johann Heidenberg, who lived from early 1462 to late 1516,
a Benedictine abbot who also specialized in cryptography as well as the occult, and was mentor
to the famous Henrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, author of the “Three Books of Occult
Philosophy” as well as the “Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy”, although a definite connection to the
“Fourth Book” isn’t actually available, as evidence exists that it was spurious. Still, it is confirmed
that Johannes Trithemius was a real person and a real occultist. However, the text we’re focusing
on is. . . well, it doesn’t seem to appear anywhere before it appeared in the Magus. Unless Barrett
had the only “valuable Latin manuscript” that contained it, I think it might be one of Barrett’s few
original contributions to the occult.

16 http://theoccultandmagick.blogspot.com/2011/06/reconstructing-solomons-triangle.html
17 https://books.google.com/books?id=aXpRAAAAcAAJ

7
Figure 2: Original Table of Practice design based on Fr. RO’s RWC.

8
 (a) Table of Practice.

(b) With crystal.

Figure 3: Original Table of Practice made from Fr. RO’s RWC.

9
Figure 4: Second Table of Practice design based on Fr. RO’s RWC with zodiacal angels and
godnames.

10
Figure 5: Implementation of the second Table of Practice design.

11
2 The Tools of the Ritual
So, onto the text itself. DSIC begins with the following instructions:

Procure of a lapidary good clear pellucid crystal, of the bigness of a small orange,
i.e. about one inch and a half in diameter; let it be globular or round each way alike;
then, when you have got this crystal, fair and clear, without any clouds or specks, get
a small plate of pure gold to encompass the crystal round one half; let this be fitted on
an ivory or ebony pedestal, as you may see more fully described in the drawing, [figure
1]. Let there be engraved a circle (A) round the crystal with these characters around
inside the circle next the crystal:

afterwards the name “Tetragrammaton“. On the other side of the plate let there be
engraven “Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael;” which are the four principal angels ruling
over the Sun, Moon, Venus and Mercury; but on the table on which the crystal stands
the following names, characters, &c. must be drawn in order.
First, The names of the seven planets and angels ruling them, with their seals or char-
acters. The names of the four kings of the four corners of the earth. Let them be all
written within a double circle, with a triangle on a table; on which place the crystal on
its pedestal: this being done, thy table is complete (as in the Fig. D,) and fit for the
calling of the spirits. . .

From this description, we know we need four things:

• A small, pure, clear crystal

• A small plate of gold, engraved on one side with the three signs as above and the divine name
“Tetragrammaton” and on the other with the names of the four archangels, into which the
crystal must be set
• An ebony pedestal to hold the gold plate and crystal

• A table to support the pedestal, on which is engraved everything else

Shortly before the text itself is a plate given with an illustration of some of the implements
referenced (see figure 1). The plate itself has depictions of the following, along with the following
captions for each of the images:

• The wand—“The Magic Wand to be used in Invocations by the Chrystal. Write or engrave
on the other side ‘Ego Alpha et Omega’.”
• The two candles — “Two Holy wax Lights to be used in the Invocation by the Chrystal.”

12
 • The pedestal for the crystal itself — “The true size and form of the Chrystal which must be
sett in pure Gold, & the same names & characters as in the model here given.”
• The magic circle for the magician to stand within — “The magic Circle of a simple construction
in which the operator must stand or sit when he uses the Chrystal.”

• The censer — “The Tripod on which the perfumes are put, & may be either held in the hand
or sett in the earth.”
• The lamen — “The Lamen, or Holy Table of the Archangel Michael”.

Since the pedestal was brought up first in DSIC, let’s start there. Unfortunately, the depiction
of the pedestal is only given from one side, showing the side of the four angels and not that of the
three symbols and the name “Tetragrammaton”, and there is no image of the table itself. All we
have to go on is the description given at the start of DSIC.

2.1 The Crystal

While we’re here, let me make a small note about the crystal. To be true to the text, it must
be a spherical crystal ball. Alright, no surprises there, nothing we didn’t expect! But, according
to the text, it should be “about the size of a small orange”; when you see this, don’t think of the
usual navel oranges you find in supermarkets, but think of mikan or Mandarin oranges. Like, we’re
talking small in the sense of it being just a large marble. Happily, Trithemius gives an actual
measurement, “i.e. about one inch and a half in diameter”. This isn’t big at all; for reference, here’s
an image from an Etsy listing18 that sells just that very size (see figure 6).
Fr. AC says a bit about how small this actually is, but considers that the smallness of the crystal
makes sense for the design of what DSIC is prescribing, and further, that “one needs to be able to
gaze directly at the sphere without any peripheral distractions”, something more like single-pointed
fixation-style gazing. I mean, it’s not like we need a wide-screen TV to conjure and communicate
with angels.
Likewise, although we might naturally jump at the conclusion that we should get quartz crys-
tal (especially as lapidaries are mentioned, from whom we should get such a crystal), it doesn’t
necessarily have to be quartz. Heck, the image of the crystal above is shows a lead crystal, and
which was used across the Old World, especially to imitate precious and semiprecious gems and
stones. Quartz may well be preferred, but finding pure quartz, even of that size, can be difficult.
Personally, I don’t think the exact material of the scrying medium matters all that much; you could
use quartz, calcite, or lead crystal, or plain glass, and probably get fine results any which way.
However, I greatly prefer quartz, even if it’s not “pellucid” and “fair and clear, without any clouds
or specks”; mine have plenty of inclusions in them, which I don’t think detract all that much from
the final effect, but if you want to go with really clear, have at. You might do better to go with
reconstituted, fused, or lab-grown quartz, in that case. Fr. AC goes on a bit about the differences
between them, and how they didn’t much matter in practice, even if they do in price and aesthetic.
Plus, consider that back in the day, they didn’t have such things as reconstituted or fused quartz;
chances are that if you could get “pellucid”, perfectly clear quartz, you were almost necessarily
bound to getting small pieces. Nowadays we can get massive crystal balls that are perfectly clear
without any inclusions or mars, but back then, if you wanted something perfectly clear all the way
18 https://www.etsy.com/listing/610586514/clear-crystal-ball-15-leaded-crystal

13
Figure 6: An example of a 1.5" spherical crystal ball.

14
though, you shouldn’t hold your breath for more than a marble. Getting such a perfectly clear
natural crystal back then “about the size of a small orange” was probably pushing the bounds of
feasibility and affordability for most people.
For that matter, though, let’s be honest: there are plenty of perfectly legitimate scrying materials
and mediums one might use from the grimoiric tradition. Now, to be fair, DSIC is called “Drawing
Spirits Into Crystals” for a reason, not DSIM (mirrors), DSIW (water), DSIB (bowls), or whatever.
But we surely cannot deny the fact that there’s no one medium that’s truly best; heck, Fr. Acher of
Theomagica19 uses a splendid black scrying mirror on top of his Table of Practice20 (see figure 7),
and has gotten results that are just fine and splendid according to his writeups from e.g. his Arbatel
operations21 , and Fr. AC himself describes how to prepare scrying mirrors in GTSC if one wants
to go that route instead of using a crystal. You could also take a hint from Asterion’s idea of
modernizing water vessel divination instruments by using basically a large clear wine glass full of
water22 (see figure 8), which would simulate the optics of crystal rather nicely and at an excellent
affordable price.
But let’s say that we do, in fact, want to go with crystal; it is, after all, a useful material. Agrippa
mentions crystal (basically quartz) as being a waterish material since it’s considered “compacted
of water” along with beryl and and pearl (book I, chapter 7)23 , as well as lunary (book I, chapter
24)24 , as well as being ruled over by the Pleiades (book I, chapter 32)25 and the sign Aquarius (book
II, chapter 14)26 . However, beyond that, Agrippa doesn’t much talk about the substance in his
Three Books, and not at all in his Fourth Book. Honestly, that doesn’t surprise me all that much;
while I don’t have any immediate sources to back this up, I feel like using crystals for divination and
conjuration in this matter was a fairly late development in conjuration tech. Rather, if anything,
spirits were just supposed to just show up without necessarily appearing in anything, or instead
used materials like one’s fingernail, vessels, candleflames, or smoke.
Anyway, back to DSIC. The text says that the crystal should be “globular or round each way
alike”, which is to say as perfect a sphere as possible. When we talk about the pedestal that supports
the crystal in the next post, this makes sense from an aesthetic point of view, and also since spheres
have a long history dating back to Hellenistic times in Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy as
being the most perfect shape, especially for perfect beings. And, to be fair, crystal balls have a long
trope in our culture as being the method for scrying for all sorts of occultists and fortune-tellers.
Personally? I don’t see much of a need that it has to be a sphere; if you’re sticking to the DSIC
design, then there are good practical reasons for it to be, but if not, then I’d consider any decently-
and appropriately-sized, unbroken crystal with a smooth surface would work. I have a particularly
nice quartz tetrahedron I got some years ago that I’ve used quite well for conjuring and scrying,
which I find geometrically appropriate for use in triangles since the tetrahedron is just the projection
of the two-dimensional triangle into three-dimensional space. I show this off prominently on my
Facebook page on this overdone, overwrought fancy altar photo I took a while ago (see figure 9).
But that’s just me. I did start off, of course, using a natural quartz sphere, and I still occasionally
use it, but I like using the quartz tetrahedron when I get the chance to do so.
19 https://theomagica.com/
20 https://theomagica.com/trithemius-table-of-practice
21 https://theomagica.com/the-arbatel-experience
22 http://solomonicmagic.blogspot.com/2013/01/affordably-scrying-implements.html
23 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap7
24 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1b.htm#chap24
25 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1b.htm#chap32
26 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap14

15
Figure 7: Fr. Acher’s black mirror.

16
Figure 8: Asterion’s water vessel.

17
Figure 9: A fancy altar setup.

18
 In the end, you can probably use whatever scrying medium you want for DSIC operations,
though a crystal fits the method and design best, especially if spherical, as we’ll see next time when
we talk about the pedestal and how that ties into the design of the table upon which it’s to be
placed. Going forward, we’ll assume a spherical crystal ball to fit in with the rest of the DSIC
design, but later down the line, we’ll talk about alternative approaches more firmly and how to
finagle the whole system to accommodate such adjustments.

2.2 The Pedestal

So we have this crystal ball, and according to the instructions in DSIC, we need to set it into a
particular pedestal, which we have a design and a description for. We need to set the crystal in
a gold plate “round one half”, but that phrase is a little odd to read and interpret. This may be
interpreted to mean either to set the crystal ball halfway through the plate, such that it sticks out
equally from both sides, or that the crystal must be put into a depression on the plate such that the
crystal sticks out visibly from one half and is covered by gold on the other. I’ve only ever seen this
latter interpretation discussed twice, once by I forget by whom; doing so would make the crystal
look completely gold from the front, and the pure gold backing (if polished and smooth enough)
would turn the crystal into a spherical (almost parabolic) mirror of sorts. This could certainly be
the case, and it’s not like mirrors aren’t used in conjuration as a scrying medium, but I’ve only
seen one person provide that sort of explanation, and I’ve never seen an example of anyone actually
using it. The other place is Fr. RO himself in his Modern Angelic Grimoire which forms part of
RWC, where he describes this as (emphasis in my bold text):

The Crystal used in the Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals was a clear crystal ball an
inch and a half in diameter, with a special gold plate covering the bottom half
of it. On the gold plate, a Star of David with a Yod in it, a pentagram, a Maltese
cross, and Tetragrammaton were engraved. On the other side of the plate, the names
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel were engraved. The side with the symbols was
placed against the crystal, and then the gold plate was mounted to a pedestal of ebony
or ivory. I’m assuming the plate was molded to the shape of the crystal.

However, that said, the more common (by far) interpretation, which makes more sense to me
and which is more popular, is the former: use a thin plate of gold, make a hole in the plate, and
set the crystal into the hole such that it’s visible from both sides.
Either way, we must set the plate into a pedestal made of either ivory or ebony; alternatively,
from a practical point of view, we set the crystal directly into the pedestal, and then place one gold
plate with a hole in the middle around the crystal on the front of the pedestal, and another on the
reverse. Either works, so long as the final result looks the same; we want the gold to be visible
from both sides of the pedestal, which necessitates it either a large circle cut out from the pedestal
for the gold plate and crystal to fit into, or the crystal put into a hole in the wood on a recessed
surface and gold being put on either side. The former would be ideal. Why do we need to have the
plate, or at least some gold surface, visible from both sides? Because there are inscriptions to be
made on the plate on both sides, and it doesn’t make sense for there to be just one plate tacked
onto the wood with half the inscriptions visible and the other half hidden by the wood.
How big should the plate be? Based on the image given in DSIC, it doesn’t look all that big
compared to the crystal. If the crystal is about 1.5” in diameter, then using that very image from
DSIC as a guide, the plate should be about 2.32” in diameter, giving us a space of about 0.4” to

19
 Figure 10: Fr. AC’s pedestal and crystal.

write within on the band produced by the plate with the crystal in the middle; this is not a big
space. That would make the whole ebony/ivory board into which the plate itself is set something
like 3.3” wide total, and like 5” tall or so. Fr. AC’s pedestals, it would seem27 , are far bigger than
what would be recommended according to DSIC; he also appears (just based on general photos
without any clear frame of reference besides guessing) to use a larger-sized crystal (despite what he
said about the benefits of it being small in the last post) with a bit more ebony wood on all sides
of the plate.28
On one side of the gold plate (or on the gold plate on one side of the pedestal, depending on
how you interpret it) should be written the names of the four archangels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael,
27 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2014/10/magical-services.html
28 In a private message to me, Fr. AC confirmed that the crystals he uses in every ebony pedestal he makes are

1.5” in diameter. I’ve never seen his tools in person, so it could be that the pictures in which he shows them makes
me think they’re larger than they are. So my assumption about them being larger in what he makes is wrong, and I
appreciate his correction!

20
and Uriel; interestingly, although Uriel is almost never given to rule over planets, DSIC says that
Uriel rules over Venus, though in the table of planetary hours and presiding angels at the end of
DSIC, we see Anael instead. I think the ascription of Uriel to Venus, even if interesting, is almost
certainly a mistake if not a once-off departure from the usual associations we see of either Uriel or
of Venus.
Now, there’s already a problem here; the text says to engrave the names Michael, Gabriel, Uriel,
and Raphael (presumably in that order), while the image from DSIC gives the order (clockwise,
starting from the top) Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel. I personally like the order given in
the image better; this puts Raphael opposing Michael and Gabriel opposing Uriel, which makes
elemental sense. If we start at the top of the ring and consider it to be East, then we have it arranged
such that Michael of Fire associated with the East (cardinal sign of Fire Aries) and Raphael of Air
with the West (Libra) make one axis, while Gabriel of Water with the North (Cancer) and Uriel of
Earth with the South (Capricorn) make the other axis; this is shown as the first of three options in
the next set of designs (see figure 11. The only issue with this is, if we write the names clockwise
around the circle (as indicated by the image in DSIC), this puts Gabriel on the right and Uriel on
the left, which makes the angelic directions go counterclockwise. I’m not pleased by that, honestly,
but it’s what the image explicitly shows, and I’m willing to trust it for this. If we were to keep a
clockwise motion here, we’d have Uriel on the right and Gabriel on the left. Either way, they’re
on the same axis, so their elemental relationship is still preserved. Besides, if this plate is facing
away from the conjurer, then the directions would still match what we’d expect, with Gabriel then
aligned towards the North and Uriel to the South, so it’d still work. We’d just need to face this
side away from us when it’s put on the table, and since there’s nothing actually saying how to align
the pedestal, this should be fine.
Now, on the other hand, if we take the other order and start with Michael at the right point,
then we get (starting from the top) Raphael at the top, Michael at the right, Gabriel at the bottom,
and Uriel at the left, which gets us the East-Air Fire-South Water-West Earth-North attribution
that’s so common in later occult works (option #2). Either works, I suppose, but I prefer the
former choice, as it lines up better with the elemental-direction association I use based on cosmic
directions of the signs of the Zodiac, and which is already used by Cornelius Agrippa in his Scale
of Four (book II, chapter 7). GTSC, however, uses the latter choice of Michael-South, but keeping
Michael at the top of the ring (option #3).
Personally, I don’t see that big an issue with choosing any one of these options, or another
option, so long as you have the names of the four archangels on this side of the gold plate and
have them arranged in a way that makes sense to you. But what about the other side? Since no
depiction is given in DSIC, we have to interpret what is specifically meant by:

Let there be engraved a circle round the crystal with these characters around inside the
circle next the crystal:

afterwards the name “Tetragrammaton“.

21
 (a) Variation #1. (b) Variation #2.

(c) Variation #3.

Figure 11: Different variations on the angel-name side of the plate.

22
 I can see two possible interpretations of this, based on how one wants to interpret the meaning
of the word “afterwards”:

1. We inscribe the hexagram with central Yod, the pentagram, and the cross around the crystal
in one “ring”, then the name “Tetragrammaton” around the symbols in a second “ring”.
2. We inscribe the hexagram with central Yod, the pentagram, the cross, and the name “Tetra-
grammaton” around the symbols in the same ring.

First, note that the first symbol is one I’m describing as a “hexagram with a central Yod”, refer-
ring to the mark made in the center of the hexagram. Following Fr. RO’s reading, I’m interpreting
this as the Hebrew letter Yod, the tenth letter of the Hebrew script, which Agrippa explicitly states
is the single-letter name of God (book II, chapter 4)29 , and itself has the numerological value of 10.
This makes sense to me, although DSIC never clearly states what this mark actually is. Fr. AC
in GSTC interprets it as a Daleth, the fourth letter of the Hebrew script, which can represent the
four-lettered name of God YHVH, as well as “door”, as in a gate by which spirits may traverse
or communicate. I personally don’t find Fr. AC’s interpretation convincing, but I can see why he
might read this as a Daleth and not a Yod, given the lack of clarity in the DSIC illustrations.
What about the name Tetragrammaton? This is a commonly-encountered divine name of God
used in plenty of occult works both past and present, and it literally means “[word of] four letters”,
referring to the name of God in Judaism, YHVH. Personally, I don’t much like using “Tetragram-
maton”, because it seems to me like a euphemism to be used instead of the actual name (like the
Hebrew haShem, literally “the Name”, to refer to God and his name indirectly); I’d rather write
out ‫ יהוה‬than “Tetragrammaton”. However, I can’t deny that the actual word “Tetragrammaton” is
used in other occult texts, and its presence on the wand in DSIC suggests that, no, DSIC really
means “Tetragrammaton”. Okay, I guess.
See figure 12 for the different options we have here. Option #1 seems unlikely, given that the
specific phrasing of the design suggests an order, and moreover the narrowness of the ring doesn’t
lend itself well to multiple rings. as a variant of option #2, we can split the word “Tetragrammaton”
up into three parts (“Tetra”, “Gramma”, “Ton”) and intersperse these three parts between the three
symbols: “Tetra” between the hexagram and pentagram, “Gramma” between the pentagram and
cross, and “Ton” between the cross and hexagram. Splitting up the word “Tetragrammaton” is seen
in other grimoires, after all, and the effect is rather pleasing.
Given the spatial appearance of the plate of gold from the DSIC illustration, we don’t have a
lot of space between the crystal and the edge of the gold plate, and we probably don’t want to
make the engraving too small, instead keeping it at the same size of font. This is probably the most
reasonable case to be made for selecting option #2 as what was most likely meant by DSIC for this
side of the gold plate—though, personally speaking, I like the variant of option #2 better, with
“Tetragrammaton” interspersed between the symbols. Indeed, this is the very choice that Fr. Ashen
Chassan takes in GTSC, though he puts “TETRA” on the left between the cross and hexgram with
central Yod, “GRAMMA” on the right between the hexagram with central Yod and pentagram, and
“TON” on the bottom between the pentagram and cross, as he showed in a detail on his Facebook
page30 (see figure 13).
However, GTSC also brings up a different design choice altogether when it describes the gold
plate: the book says that the two sides of the plate could (or should? it’s unclear from how Fr. Ashen
29 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap4
30 https://www.facebook.com/1448365135481928/photos/a.1457489341236174/2242233012761799/

23
 (a) Variation #1. (b) Variation #2.

(c) Variation #3.

Figure 12: Different variations on the symbol side of the plate.

24
Figure 13: Symbol side of Fr. AC’s plate and pedestal.

25
Chassan phrases it) be one side, with the three symbols and Tetragrammaton on the inside closer
to the crystal and the four angel names on the outside of the gold plate, as this would “feature the
names ‘inside and outside’, not ‘forward and behind” ’, which. . . doesn’t really follow from reading
DSIC, which clearly states “on the other side of the plate”. From what this description implies, and
using my options #2 and #3 from above for the symbol side as well as the Michael-East angel ring
layout, we’d end up with the designs given in figure 14 as potential designs for the single-sided gold
plate, if we just wanted to engrave one side of it.
I don’t like either of these at all, to be honest, on top of the fact that I can’t imagine that
this is what DSIC is actually suggesting we use, just how the symbol ring option #1 above doesn’t
seem likely, and on top of the bit we discussed about the specific placement of angels on the disc
to matches up with the direction when facing the reverse side of the pedestal. But these could be
considered options if you wanted to just go with a one-sided plate or if you were using some other
kind of pedestal that, for some reason, didn’t have the option of engraving two sides.
As for the overall shape of the pedestal itself, which Fr. AC matches petty closely, the DSIC
illustration just shows a. . . something like a schoolhouse-silhouette-like board, cut out with a little
lozenge at the top. Getting the lozenge to be that fine of a point at its bottom while still being
anchored to the rest of the board is perilous, so I don’t think it could be that narrow without it
being too easily knocked off, but alright, whatever. Above the crystal and plate is engraved another
hexagram with another Yod in it, at least on the side of the names of the four angels; there’s nothing
showing us what, if anything, should be engraved on the other side.
I also want to point out that DSIC says that the pedestal may be made out of either ebony or
ivory; the text treats them as functionally equivalent for this purpose. Although Fr. AC mentions
what DSIC says here about the choice, he only ever considers ebony in GTSC. For all its difficulty
to come by and its expensive nature, ivory is even harder and more difficult to come by, and at
greater cost. For ethical reasons, I can’t really recommend getting ivory to be used for such a
pedestal. However, if you have ethically-sourced ivory of enough stability and quality to use, you
could use it if you want. Ebony matches the use of the wand (which we’ll cover later), but ivory
would work as well.
Interestingly, although Fr. AC makes these pedestal with a leg and foot for it to stand higher
up (see the picture higher up in the post of one of his creations), that’s not actually depicted here;
whether that was considered extra or just an oversight just isn’t known. A simple board doesn’t
seem able to support itself very well, so it might be that something would be needed to properly
support this pedestal on the table itself, whether some sort of anchor or support or weight; a leg
does seem appropriate and necessary. Plus, if we do include a leg for the pedestal, as pointed out to
me by my good bromancer Pallas Renatus31 a few years back, then the pedestal for the crystal and
gold plate begins to bear a strong visual similarity to the ostensorium, also known as a monstrance,
a vessel used in Catholic and Anglican churches to hold and display the consecrated Eucharistic
Host or of other holy relics. In that light, having such a pedestal with a leg makes perfect sense,
with the crystal taking the place of the Host, the gold plate taking the place of the sunburst so
common in monstrances, and the lozenge at the top taking the place of the surmounting cross
or crucifix (see figure 15). Heck, some monstrances even take the shape of miniature churches or
cathedrals themselves, which have the same rough outline as the schoolhouse-silhouette from DSIC
(see figure 16).
GTSC mentions that there’s another text, Occult Spells: A Nineteenth Century Grimoire com-
piled by Frederick Hockley. This text describes a similar device to the DSIC pedestal, though
31 http://pallasrenatus.blogspot.com/

26
 (a) Variation #1.

(b) Variation #2.

Figure 14: Different variations on the GTSC-suggested plate.

27
Figure 15: Different examples of sunburst-type monstrances.

28
Figure 16: Different examples of churchhouse-type monstrances.

29
which uses a consecrated beryl, “a kind of chrystal that hath a weak Tincture of red”, i.e. a red
emerald, though other magicians may use “a chrystal sphere or mineral pearl for the purpose which
is inspected by a boy or sometimes by the querent himself”. Hockley goes on to say that “[this]
Beryll is a Perfect Sphere, the diameter I guess to be something more than an inch, it is set in a
ring or circle of silver resembling the Meridian of a Globe, the stem of it is about 10 inches high all
gilt at the 4 quarters of it and the names of the 4 angels viz, Uriel, Gabriel, Michael, Raphael on
the top is a cross patee”. Hockley gives a depiction of it (see figure 17); though not identical to the
DSIC apparatus, it is strikingly similar, and gives another idea for some to work with. This still
retains the loose idea of a monstrance, too, just of the round sunburst style instead of the cathedral-
or church-shaped style that’s implied by DSIC, and might even be closer given its simpler nature
and the inclusion of the cross on top. And remember how we pointed out last time that Agrippa
considers both quartz crystal and beryl to be watery materials (book I, chapter 7)32 !
Since Hockley’s text postdates that of The Magus, I think that this form might well be a
derivative or alternative form of what’s presented in DSIC. As a result, we end up having two
forms of the pedestal to play with: the church-shaped monstrance style from DSIC proper, and this
sunburst-shaped monstrance style from Occult Spells; fundamentally, it’s the same thing, something
to hold aloft the crystal above the table, and the only real difference is the general shape of the
ebony or ivory material that supports the plate and crystal. I can’t, however, explain the presence
of the hexagram with the central Yod inside from the DSIC image, however, and it’s not mentioned
in the text itself. We do know that the DSIC images love to use hexagrams, though; they’re on the
wand, circle, lamen, and in the ring of gold itself around the crystal, and DSIC does make repeated
use of this hexagram-with-central-Yod design that I don’t really see elsewhere outside DSIC. GTSC
uses this symbol on both the front and back of the pedestal, but there’s nothing saying anything
about it being on either side, just the depiction of it on the side of the pedestal with the names of
the angels (which, as I argued above, would probably be facing away from the magician).
I don’t particularly think much of this, honestly; include it if you want, if you have space on
the pedestal above the crystal, at least on the side of the angel names, but if you don’t, I don’t
think it’s that much of a loss if you were to omit it or didn’t have space for it. I assume that, if it
was actually vital to the device, the text would have said something about it like it does the other
symbols and the names. Plus, the symbol is already present on the ring with “Tetragrammaton”
on it, so duplicating it again on the same object could just be unnecessary and used as a stylistic
thing (and I see some authors like Donald Tyson and Fr. AC argue that duplication is probably a
mistake in some of these contexts related to DSIC tool design). I can’t say for certain, but I don’t
think it’s that necessary for the apparatus as a whole to have this stylized hexagram present on the
actual pedestal itself outside of the gold plate that holds the crystal. To my eyes, it’s just an added
mark of holiness, perhaps used to fill the otherwise empty space above the crystal so as to use more
ebony and give it a more churchy-monstrance look, but I don’t think it’s much more than that.
However, let’s be honest: the construction of the pedestal is nontrivial, and not everyone can
make the thing to DSIC spec. Something Fr. AC notes in GTSC is that John Dee (of Elizabethan
and Enochiana fame, of course) “utilized a similar crystal device with a gold band wrapping the
stone with a gold cross on top”, and that if the pedestal option seems too difficult, this might well
(but not necessarily) suffice. We have a design from Dee’s original journals of such a design, with
the crystal inside a band on some sort of four-footed stand (see figure 18).
Not only does the cross on top give this sort of depiction a monstrancy-kind of flavor, it also
ties it visually with the crystal stand present in Hockley’s text above. After all, whether the crystal
32 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap7

30
Figure 17: The pedestal for the crystal from Hockley.

31
Figure 18: The design for John Dee’s banded crystal shewstone.

32
is surrounded by a plate of gold or a band of gold, it’s still surrounded by gold, either way, and
it’s still doing the same fundamental thing as the stand in DSIC! This idea for using a band of fold
was used by Fr. FC of the Faith From Causation blog33 for preparing the crystal for their DSIC
implementation (see figure 19). Though they originally started with no housing or encasement for
the crystal, they realized that the pedestal or something of the like was important, but instead of
the pedestal itself, opted for a gold band to go around the crystal (in their case, made of gold foil
paper). In their writeup of the Trithemian tools34 , they put the divine names and symbols on the
inside of the ring and the four angels on the outside.
This is an appealing substitution, I have to admit, since as Fr. FC states, “some sort of housing
can block glare from the candles”. Personally, if I were to go this route, I’d put the angels on the
inside (being “behind” the band) and the divine names and symbols on the outside to match what
I described about the orientation of the pedestal above. Plus, it’d put the angels literally on the
crystal, and since the whole point of the ritual is to conjure angels into crystals, it seems like it
makes more sense that way to me. Of course, instead of taking this route, one might use another
band like this to act as a stand itself; imagine a cardboard tube (like that used for toilet paper)
stood up on its end, with “Tetragrammaton” and the three symbols written on the outside and the
four angels written on the outside, and you could have another more-or-less viable substitution for
the pedestal—though at the expense of having anything going “around” the crystal itself in space.
It’s another option to consider, at least.
And that’s if you want to have the pedestal at all. After all, many people who use DSIC
(especially in the Fr. RO RWC/SS method) don’t use any sort of pedestal, angelic names, or the
like at all: they just plop the crystal right on the table. Though doing so goes against DSIC’s
instructions to use a pedestal with sacred names and symbols and the like, countless people have
still gotten abundantly useful results (myself included). Taking this approach, however, typically
involves some changes in how the different bits of equipment are designed and constructed. This
includes making possible changes to the table, and we’ll begin getting into the design of that next
time.

2.3 The Table of Practice

Okay, so we have the crystal, and we’ve got the pedestal made with the engraved plate of gold that
surrounds the crystal (or some variation on that, or none at all, depending on the approach you
want to go with). With that done, we can now get into the second half of the main apparatus of
DSIC: the table upon which the pedestal itself sits. What does this table look like? We have this
description:

. . . the table on which the crystal stands the following names, characters, &c. must be
drawn in order.
First, The names of the seven planets and angels ruling them, with their seals or char-
acters. The names of the four kings of the four corners of the earth. Let them be all
written within a double circle, with a triangle on a table; on which place the crystal on
its pedestal: this being done, thy table is complete (as in the Fig. D,) and fit for the
calling of the spirits. . .

Let’s break this down:

33 http://fraterfc.blogspot.com/
34 http://fraterfc.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-to-trithemius-part-1-tools.html

33
Figure 19: Fr. FC’s banded crystal.
34
 • The things that are mentioned must be drawn in order.
• The things that are mentioned must be drawn within “a double circle”.
• The things that are mentioned are: “the names of the seven planets and the angels ruling
them with their seals or characters”, and “the names of the four kings of the four corners of
the earth”.
• A triangle is also on the table, in which the pedestal is placed.

2.3.1 Four Kings or Four Angels?

When we talk about “the four kings of the four corners of the earth”, what names are these?
Although DSIC doesn’t explicitly say, the general consensus that nobody disagrees with is that
these would be Oriens in the East, Paimon (or Paymon) in the West, Egyn in the North, and
Amaymon in the South. Joseph Peterson of the very Esoteric Archives itself35 gives a wonderful
note on this topic:

There is considerable variation in identification of the four kings of the cardinal direc-
tions. Here are a few: Agrippa, OP2.7 has (E, W, N, S): “Oriens.Paymon.Egyn.Amaymon”,
however in OP3.24 he says, “Urieus, King of the East; Amaymon, King of the South;
Paymon, King of the West; Egin, King of the North, which the Hebrew Doctors per-
haps call more rightly thus, Samuel, Azazel, Azael, Mahazuel,” (See Cichus In Sphaeram
Mundi, f. 21 apud quem: Zoroa. Fragm. O104; cf. Salom. ff. 28v-29r; sed addict. K:
Reuchl. Arte 3, sig. O7r) MC has: “Bael, Moymon, Poymon, Egyn” or “Asmodel in the
East, Amaymon in the South, Paymon in the West, and Aegym in the North”; “Oriens,
Paymon, Egyn, and Amaymon”; or “Amodeo [sic] (king of the East), Paymon (king of
the West), Egion (king of the North), and Maimon.”

That said, many people use the four archangels Michael for Fire, Raphael for Air, Gabriel for
Water, and Uriel for Earth instead of the four kings (as I myself have in the past). What gives?
Such a table design that uses the four archangels instead of the four kings is mostly credited to
Fr. Rufus Opus; even though Fr. RO isn’t the only one to have done it this way, he is the one who
most people attribute this design to. As a result, there’s periodically debate about whether to use
the four archangels or the four kings.
Personally, my own work has never significantly involved these spirits beyond a token chat, and
even to this day, they’re in this grey area of things that I’m aware are important, but I’m not
entirely sure why. Thankfully, Magister Omega of A Journey into Ceremonial Magick36 posted a
wonderful summary of the four kings in the grimoire tradition37 , and there’s plenty to show how
important the four kings can be, especially for goetic magicians, but also for us as far as DSIC is
concerned. While Omega does cite GTSC and Fr. AC’s own personal view as well as UPG from
the angel Metatron, he also cites the good Dr. Stephen Skinner and a number of other authors (I
can spot some of Jake Stratton-Kent’s words in there, too):
35 http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm
36 http://www.omega-magick.com/
37 http://www.omega-magick.com/2015/03/the-four-kings-in-grimoires-tradition.html

35
 The four kings are spiritual creatures (and therefore winged) but they are demon kings
not angels. . .
The Kings cannot be approached in the same way you might approach the Archangels.
Start with the lesser demons. Threaten them with the name of their King if necessary.
Only after you have bound a few of the hierarchy, then think about the Kings. You
can use the Kings name without having previously called him (that is just the way it
works). . . .
The Kings open the Gates, not something anyone should do unless they really know what
they are doing. Their names are useful to enforce discipline on the spirits belonging to
their legions. But, as Frater AC mentioned, they are not the ones you would choose to
personally grant the usual run of wishes.
It’s odd to me that we would need the use of the four kings, then, if we were going to use DSIC
just for angelic conjuration, but that’s just it: the way DSIC is written (and, as we’ll see later, the
sources that DSIC itself builds upon and pulls from) implies that it can be used for angelic/theurgic
works as well as goetic/non-angelic works. In that case, the four kings would be recommended,
because it does enforce a sort of authority upon whatever’s being conjured—unless they’re not
under the authority of such spirits at all. But, as Fr. AC said, it may not be about authority at all:
As [the archangels and angels] are the vertical, they are the horizontal. They are the
morally neutral yet powerful governors between the planes of existence.
Still, it’s not like there aren’t multiple traditions of Western magic and cosmology at play here,
nor can we ignore that there are different eras and developments in those lines. It’s simply a fact
that many (not all) people haven’t worked with these four kings, needed to work with them, or
even had a cosmology that required their presence or their roles in ways that Skinner or JSK or
others would describe them, both now and for centuries into the past. Plus, there are also those
who have different views on the roles and nature of these four kings and their relationships to the
angels; one person’s UPG is another person’s dismissed rubbish, after all. If you work with the four
kings or recognize them as important in your cosmology, great! If not, then that’s also fine. After
all, there’s more than one way to skin a cat: there’s no one way to consider the role or nature of
the four kings, and no one way to do conjuration (even with DSIC, with all its extant variants).
Now, back to Fr. RO. What does he say about his design that omits the four kings in favor
of the four archangels? He explains a bit from RWC when he gives his exemplar of the Table of
Practice (see figure 20), specifically in Lesson 6 of the Black Work class:
The Table of Practice is a symbol of the cosmos. It contains an outer circle with the
names of the archangels of the spheres, and symbols of their planets. Within that
is another circle, this with the names of the Four Angels* of the corners of the Earth.
Within that is a triangle with a pentagram, the Star of David with a Yod, and a Maltese
cross.
The outermost circle represents the Seven Heavens and the Intelligences therein. They
are the governors of the spheres, and their presence helps ensure you get the spirit you’re
looking for when you perform your conjuration. The Elemental Kings provide the gate
to the material realm, so the spirits can influence your life materially, if necessary, but
they also make sure that any spirit you call up of a terrestrial nature won’t go ballistic
and eat your soul, leaving you dead by dawn.

36
Figure 20: Fr. RO’s old version of the Table of Practice.

37
These two circles together represent the meeting of the Heavens and the Earth in your
temple space.
The triangle in the center of the circle is rather unique. Triangles are used in conjurations
as the place the spirit manifests. In the Lemegeton Goetia, the magician stands within
the center of an elaborate Magic Circle, and the Triangle is placed outside the Circle.
The magician is theoretically safe from the evil of the demonic spirits he’s conjuring
because the triangle constrains the spirit, and the circles provide further protection.
In The Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals, the source book for the Modern Angelic
Grimoire, the magician sits or stands within a Magic Circle, but he’s got the Triangle of
Art engraved on the Table of Manifestation inside the protective circle with him. The
triangle is within another set of circles to protect him, but it’s different from most of
the other approaches to conjuration I’ve seen.
I like it better with the spirit in the circle with you for purely practical purposes. It
makes it easier to sit in front of the Table of Practice and do the scrying, the crystal
can be right there in front of you instead of across the room.
It should be noted that in the Modern Angelic Grimoire, I adapted the Table of Practice
from the original instructions. The circles and the triangle are on the Table that you
use, but then you’re supposed to build a separate device to hold the crystal ball you
conjure the spirits into.
Bryan Garner, also known as Fr. Ashen, has recently written a book on The Art of
Drawing Spirits into Crystals. He created the tools as specified in the instructions, and
if you want to see how it’s supposed to look, you can see pictures of what he came
up with in his interpretation on his blog. He added in some stuff from his experience
in traditional Solomonic Magic, but it still remains completely in harmony with the
original manuscript.

http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-almost-there-i-promise.html

I tell you this because the things I do, the things I teach are my interpretation, my
“Kabala” or “Revelation” of how the grimoires are to be used by magicians who want
to use a system that’s proven really effective to me. I encourage you to go back to
the sources. In this course, I’ve provided samples and excerpts, but in support of my
approach, to make clear certain points that I have found to be really important.
But I’ve filtered it the way I think it should be filtered, and I’ve had good results, but
you need to go back to the sources and read them for yourself, explore them with the
aid of the spirits. Invest in Tyson’s version of the Three Books of Occult Philosophy, or
read them for free on www.esotericarchives.com.
When I put the Table of Practice together, I merged the thing that’s supposed to hold
the crystal with the Table of Practice image to accomplish the same functionality as the
original design. I didn’t have the ebony and gold to follow the instructions myself, so I
made do.
It should probably be noted that this was all done after I attained Knowledge and
Conversation with my Holy Guardian Angel. The modifications and adaptations I made
were made based on things he had revealed to me as I was studying that and the Scale

38
 of the Number 4, and some other things that were percolating in my sphere at the same
time.
So it’s not totally made up, but it’s not “by the book” either.
Regardless, it works rather well.
So I put all the symbols where they belonged on the Table of Practice. The triangle is
where the spirit appears, and that’s in the center of the Circles.
* Some people say to put the names of the Elemental Kings there, Oriens, Paimon,
Amaimon, and Egyn. I prefer the angels, your mileage may vary.

He goes on more at length about the specific symbolism and role of the individual symbols used
in the Table of Practice according to his own design, and he sums it up at the end:

Taken altogether, the Table of Practice represents our relationship with the Seven Gov-
ernors, the Four Elemental Kings, and the Process of Manifestation. It is designed to
provide the place where a spirit can manifest, and to give us a shared space between
the Heavens and the Earth in which we can work together to accomplish the things we
have to do.

Note how he says “Four Elemental Kings” here, even though he’s using the four archangels. This
is because of his interpretation of how Agrippa describes the four angels in his Scale of Four (book
II, chapter 7)38 as the “four Angels ruling over the corners of the world”, in contrast to the “four
rulers of the Elements” (Seraph, Cherub, Tharsis, and Ariel), the “four Princes of Devils, offensive
in the elements” (Samael, Azazel, Azael, and Mahazael), and “the four Princes of spirits, upon the
four angles of the world” (Oriens, Paymon, Egyn, and Amaymon). On top of them being “rulers
over the corners of the world” (which does match the DSIC phrasing), he might have gotten an
explicit “king” notion, I presume, due to their correspondence in the Tarot as the Kings of the four
suits: the King of Wands to Michael of Fire, the King of Swords to Raphael of Air, and so forth.
It’s not a conventional or historical understanding of the four kings, sure, but it’s not a wrong
interpretation, either.
That said, Fr. RO does touch on the role of the four kings of the directions. In his Lesson 4 of
the Black Work course, he says:

Then there are the Four Princes. They aren’t nearly as good as the Angels. The astute
student will recognize that at least two of them show up in the Lemegeton Goetia as
Kings or otherwise as rulers of the Demons. Paimon has a seal and a description in the
grimoire, indicating he is one of the rank and file of that system, while Amaymon shows
up in a description of Ga’ap, who, among other things, can teach you to consecrate the
things “under Amaymon.”
But these guys are not demons, at least, not of the type that will come to you and cause
you illness and sickness in order to make you suffer and call out to god for salvation.
They can do that, of course, just like the angels can, but they are not specifically
designed for that.
These four Princes represent the “neutral” spirits of the elements, and they are as far
as close as I get to working with demons these days. They are like the worker bees
38 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap7

39
 of the elements, in my experience. They, and their assigned legions, are the ones that
oversee the manifestation of the elemental directives of the spirits higher up in the, uhm,
hierarchy.
I call on these spirits when I’m doing a banishing ritual, when I’m conjuring up some
Genius Loci, or when I’m looking for some instant physical manifestations of something
in particular. The last type of conjuration, for instant relief of a desire, is where things
get sketchy. It’s generally a bad idea to try to conjure on the fly, but having a good
relationship with these four princes can be useful.
I also want to note that Fr. RO began using this design of the Table of Practice as least as
early as the start of 2007, because he gives an image of a simple form of it in a post from January
200739 , though he mentions beginning to write his Modern Angelic Grimoire back in October 2006,
suggesting he was likely already using it around that time. However, more recently, Fr. RO put out
another version of the Table of Practice (see figure 21) on his own Facebook page in a post dated
May 31, 201540 , pretty much identical (with one exception which we’ll get into next time) except
using the four kings instead of the four archangels, with the following caption:
I’m preparing to give the Seven Spheres Live course, and going through the slides, I
remembered that I corrected the Table of Practice in the courses, but never bothered
to say anything publicly about it. The Table of Practice I put together for the Modern
Angelic Grimoire used the names of the Four angels of the corners of the world from
Agrippa’s Scale of the Number Four.
At the time I put that together, I didn’t know anything about Goetia, or the terrestrial
Princes, and since they weren’t called out specifically by name in the Art of Drawing
Spirits into Crystals, and because I wasn’t sure about working with “demons” at the
time, I went with the Angels. It was super effective so I didn’t think it mattered when
I went on to other things, and even though I am now very comfortable working with
Oriens, Amaymon, Paimon, and Egyn, I never bothered to update the graphics.
Jake Stratton Kent mentioned it annoys him to no end to have the Angelic names on
the Trithemian Table of Practice, cause it’s not technically right (even though it works
fine in practice). So I promised I’d fix it in the course, and I did, but for those who
haven’t seen the more accurate version, here it is.
Even by Fr. RO’s own admission, the use of the four kings is the correct set of names to use;
it’s just that this version never made it into RWC or even SS due to his thinking and approach at
the time. Well, to use his exact words, it’s the “technically right” and “accurate” approach—which
doesn’t mean he necessarily agrees with it or that he disavows using the four angels instead of the
four kings. He probably does, but as many people who use the four angels can attest, it’s still a
workable method, and so it’s not fundamentally wrong in practice even if it doesn’t agree with the
DSIC instructions.
However, remember how I said that Fr. RO wasn’t the only one who used this design choice of
the four angels instead of the four kings? So too did Fr. Acher of Theomagica, as he explains in his
own post on the Trithemian Table of Practice, which he developed around 200941 . He explains his
own design choices for his own Table of Practice (see figure 26), too (emphasis mine):
39 http://headforred.blogspot.com/2007/01/kammael-rites.html
40 https://www.facebook.com/ropocalypse/photos/rpp.677108225641324/974669162551894/
41 https://theomagica.com/trithemius-table-of-practice

40
Figure 21: Fr. RO’s newer version of the Table of Practice.

41
 On first reading it was clear we needed to amend this design to fit our budgets and
purpose. In the original description the whole device is made up of four elements:
the crystal, the gold plate, the ivory/ebony pedestal and the table. While we were
committed to staying true to the essence of the original, we had to amend the design to
match our limited crafting skills as neither of us is a goldsmith nor a carpenter.
After several weeks of study we landed on a design that brought all the carvings together
on a horizontal wooden table onto which the actual crystal would be placed. As we had
set out to design a table each, we decided to create one fit for a crystal and the other
fit for a black mirror.
The actual elements of the carvings are given as follows:

• These 3 symbols inside a circle around the crystal:

• The Tetragrammaton next to or around the three symbols
• Then the names of the 4 archangels, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael
• On the opposite side of the table the “names, characters, etc.” (sic!) of:
– the seven planets with their seals,
– the ruling angels with their seals and
– the names of the four kings of the four corners of the earth
Of course at the end of the day the whole table had to fit on our altar in the middle
of the circle of art. After measuring the maximum space we could give to the table it
turned out it couldn’t measure more than 13 inch (30cm) in diameter. Secondly, we
knew we wanted to create the whole table from wood and carve all seals, characters and
names on it – rather than just painting or drawing them on. Thus we tested carving
magical seals into wood with a standard Dremel device and the finest drill applicable.
This allowed us to understand the maximum amount of elements in our design that
would fit onto a wooden disc of 13 inch diameter.
After these practical considerations we went back to the drawing board and came up
with the following design: . . .
We clearly took artistic freedom here and e.g. brought together the seals of the front
and back of the table as well as the table and the pedestal on one single surface. We
also decided to drop the names of the four kings of the corner of the earth; it would
have simply congested the design we had in mind. However, we still felt confident as
this version created a full magical circle around the actual crystal. This was a desired
effect as the crystal would be used as the locus of manifestation and would be placed
inside our circle of art on the altar. Thus any spirit materializing in the crystal would
be bound by the circle, names and seals on the Table of Practice.

Since Fr. Acher was doing his work with the Trithemian approach in “late 2009”, this design
certainly postdates Fr. RO’s own, but the way Fr. Acher writes, it sounds like he may have come
up with the design independently from Fr. RO. He might have been influenced by Fr. RO for
all I know—I’m pretty sure there was at least some back-and-forth between them over the years,
especially as far as some of their Arbatel work was concerned, I believe—but I’m not sure that was
the case. And, by Fr. Acher’s own admission, he took “artistic freedom” in the design of the table,

42
Figure 22: Fr. Acher’s version of the Table of Practice.

43
but I don’t think anyone would deny that Fr. Acher has gotten good results all the same with his
design choices.
Either way, we have at least ten years of people using the four archangels instead of the four
kings, and it’s been shown to be another effective approach regardless of how accurate it might be
according to the instructions given in DSIC or how much goetic magicians might complain about
it or chide others (Al ). It’s also important to remember that neither Fr. RO nor Fr. Acher made
use of a separate pedestal for the crystal; if they had, then there wouldn’t be an issue, because the
four archangels would go on the pedestal and the four kings on the table. Because they dropped
the pedestal in favor of convenience and expediency, they combined the design instructions for the
pedestal and table. And, importantly, their methods still work without breaking DSIC.
Still, this topic periodically comes up in talks with various magicians, especially as source of
debate, as I said earlier. There’s a fascinating discussion from December 2014 in one of the Facebook
groups I’m in that went into the topic at length. While I won’t quote specific people (Jake Stratton-
Kent, Fr. RO, Jason Miller, Fr. AC, and others got all into the discussion along with many others
in a 150-comment thread), here’s the gist of some of the points that were discussed and brought
up for the general consideration of my readers:

• Using the four archangels instead of the four kings can be an unnecessary, unfortunate, and
retrogressive sanitization of the grimoire, if not outright being “wussy”.
• Using the four kings seems to have become more popular in modern general practice after
Fr. AC put out GTSC, which has a more accurate rendition of the table from DSIC, yet
people were still get results with it anyway.
• Using the archangels and not the kings can be seen to (but doesn’t necessarily) erase the
option of working with elementals, emphasize celestial entities instead of chthonic ones, and
result in an imbalanced spiritual approach.

• Using the archangels may be more appropriate for working strictly or mainly with celestial
and angelic entities generally.
• Using the kings can help “ground” heavenly or celestial entities into a more worldly form,
which would be better for actually “drawing spirits into crystals” and, moreover, to a concrete
or visible appearance.
• Some who have used the four archangels at one time and others the four kings at other times
get good results either way, so in some ways, the choice boils down to one’s preference and
comfort levels working with either set of spirits, but this may also be dependent upon one’s
worldview in terms of which is more useful or whether they’re equally useful.

• Others report that using the four archangels gets results both with conjuring angelic entities
as well as demonic, but demonic results always tend to fall short of angelic ones.
• Others report that the general effect of the ritual is different. Using the angelic names facilitate
more “astral” experiences, being in the realm of the spirit rather than the spirit being in the
crystal, while using the king names facilitate a more traditional conjuration experience with
the spirits appearing visibly in the crystal. This might be due to the angels encouraging
spiritual elevation and ascension through the spheres, and the kings due to their expansion
and facilitation of manifestation on material planes.

44
 • The four kings, from a grimoiric point of view (especially in light of the fact that many
grimoires say that these four entities are not to be conjured directly), provide a necessary
warden and converter for various entities to be communicated with from the many levels of
reality, whether physical or astral or celestial or something else. They are, essentially, neutral
powers that moderate exchanges between different planes or spheres.
• Using the four archangels can be seen as redundant or repetitive, considering how several of
them overlap with the angels of the planets, leading to the same name engraved in multiple
places on the Table.
• If you consider the circle of names from the pedestal to “overlay” that of the names on the
table, then the names of the angels would “cover” those of the kings. This suggests a binding,
controlling, or thwarting influence to the angels who would be seen in command over the
kings. In that light, the presence of the four angels would suggest or imply the presence of
the four kings who would be literally and metaphorically “under” them in terms of power or
rulership.
• Even if one doesn’t much care about the specific distinction between the use of angel names
and king names in this specific case, it can matter when one considers their overall approach
to Neoplatonic cosmology as used in Hermetic or Solomonic ritual, as well as keeping in line
with the extensive history and current of tradition that’s repeated time and again in grimoiric
literature.

The fact is that DSIC (almost certainly) prescribes the use of the four kings Oriens, Paimon,
Egyn, and Amaymon on the table itself, but because it doesn’t explicitly give those names, there
is a DSIC style that arose with Fr. RO and (maybe) Fr. Acher of interpreting this to use the
four archangels Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel for the same purpose with either exactly or
approximately similar results. Which DSIC approach you use is up to you—and it’s important to
note that, for the most part, most people using either approach tend to omit the use of the pedestal
and combined the inscriptions on the pedestal with that of the table, where you need the names
of both the angels and the kings. Using either set of names on the table works, but depending on
your specific approach, need, and cosmology, one set might work better than the other, or it might
not; there are a lot of variables and theories here, and it can be justified any which way. However,
if you want to take a strict approach to DSIC, then you’d want to use the four kings on the table
and not the four angels, but having the four angels kept using the pedestal. (Or, perhaps, placed
somewhere else on the table to accommodate the lack of a pedestal. We’ll talk about that option
soon enough.)
The most common approach most people take when using DSIC-based conjuration is that they
generally tend to omit the pedestal entirely and only use the table. This means that, unless you’re
going to use some sort of unusual combined approach that has both the four archangels and the four
kings at the same time on the table, you’re going to miss out on one group or the other. Depending
on how you view the roles of either or both sets of entities, you might consider it a loss or you
might not. However, I think there’s one thing that we can rule out from the list of concerns raised
in that discussion thread from above: that having the four archangels from the pedestal on the
table itself is “redundant or repetitive”. For one, the four archangels are not the planetary angels;
Michael of the Sun is not Michael of Fire, and Uriel isn’t planetary at all (despite what DSIC might
say about him being an angel of Venus). The name might be the same, but DSIC (and a number
of other texts) that a both a spirit’s name and office are significant, and the offices of these spirits

45
are different, which effectively makes them different spirits. If this was truly just a repetitive thing,
then these four angels as a distinct, discrete set shouldn’t appear anywhere at all on either the
pedestal or table, which are meant to operate together as a single overall apparatus. But they do,
which means they’re not unnecessary.
For myself? Because I started with RWC, I’ve used the four angels approach, and that has
gotten me to where I am today; I don’t think anyone can really say that it’s ineffective, because I’m
quite the counterfactual anecdote that it’s not (along with Fr. RO, Fr. Acher, and many others).
That being said, if I were to start again knowing what I know now, doing what I do now, I’d
probably use the four kings approach, and if or when I make myself another table, I would probably
use them instead of the four angels, incorporating the four angels somewhere else, so long as both
sets are present. If nothing else, I’ll have another table to experiment with and can draw my own
experiential conclusions from that, and perhaps use the two separate tables for different purposes.

2.3.2 The Planetary Contents of the Table

With the four kings understood, and the debate about the pros and cons about using the four
archangels instead of the four kings, what about the planetary stuff? DSIC says to draw “the
names of the seven planets and angels ruling them, with their seals or characters”. That’s. . . quite a
lot of stuff, actually. According to the text, we need the name of the planet, the name of the angel
ruling the planet, and then. . . well, what exactly do we mean by “their seals or characters”? Do we
mean the seals of the angels, the seals of the planet, or both? The most common form of table
that we see, as seen from Fr. RO’s versions above, use only the glyph for the planet (viz. the ones
we most commonly see as a representation of them in astrological charts and texts) and the names
of the planetary angels, with no other characters or names present. We see this in the majority
of Tables of Practice with some variants, such as the Magian-script one from the Scribbler42 (see
figure 23), another version made by Fr. FC43 (see figure 24), and many that are commonly made
and sold on Etsy4445 (see figure 25).
However, Fr. AC, as usual, goes a bit further. GTSC gives the following for each planet:
• the glyph of the planet
• the name of the planet
• the name of the angel
• the seal of the angel
GTSC separates these four elements with middle dots (·), and separates groups of these elements
with colons (:). I like that design choice of separation, but I want to call into question his choice of
characters here. Though it’s a little hard to see, an image of how he sets up his table (along with
the pedestal) is up on one of his old blog’s posts46 :
I find it incredibly odd that GTSC uses only the genitive forms of the Latin names instead of
the nominative (e.g. Saturni instead of Saturnus, “of Saturn” instead of just “Saturn”). Maybe this
is due to a result of a poor understanding of Latin on Fr. AC’s part? I mean, it could be read as
42 https://seethingamongthesuits.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/the-arbatel-project-part-ii-phul-me-once/
43 http://fraterfc.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-to-trithemius-part-1-tools.html
44 https://www.etsy.com/listing/605613649/table-of-practice-table-1-only-one-left
45 https://www.etsy.com/listing/605925830/trithemius-table-of-practice-9-engraved
46 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2015/02/gateways-through-stone-and-circle.html

46
Figure 23: The Scribbler’s Table of Practice design.

47
Figure 24: Fr. FC’s Table of Practice design.

48
Figure 25: Two different Tables of Practice from Etsy sellers.

49
Figure 26: Fr. AC’s Table of Practice with pedestal and wand.

50
e.g. “Saturni Cassiel” translating to “Cassiel of Saturn”, but the use of the separator dot would seem
to break that construction. I think Fr. AC made a mistake here: he says he likes the “old spelling”
of the planets, but that would properly imply using the nominative case here, just as we wouldn’t
say “Michaelis” (genitive of Michael) or “Raphaelem” (accusative of Raphael), just “Michael” and
“Raphael”.
However, Fr. AC interprets “their seals or characters” to only apply to the angels and not the
planets, but there are indeed characters of the planets, too, which Fr. AC completely passes over
in this case. As noted above, Fr. Acher uses the sigils of the planets derived from their magic
squares from Cornelius Agrippa (book II, chapter 22)47 , but Satyr Magos over on his blog Journey
Through The Obsidian Dream48 devised a nonce-based version that included only the planetary
glyphs and characters49 (while omitting the angelic names) from earlier on in Cornelius Agrippa
(book I, chapter 33)50 (see figure 27). Similarly, Erneus of Magia Pragmatica: Key to the Key of
Solomon51 developed a Fr. RO-based design of the Table of Practice that includes the angelic names
and seals as well as the planetary characters and images from the Magical Calendar52 , replacing
the usual planetary glyphs with their corresponding images (see figure 28). And, too, recall how
Fr. Acher uses the number square-based planetary seals, too, on his table design (see figure 26).
Satyr Magos uses the planetary characters from Agrippa, but the table design made by Erneus
uses the characters that were also used in the Ars Paulina 53 . The Ars Paulina, I should note, is
likely the main inspiration or corroborating text that the Magical Calendar sourced its versions
of the planetary characters from, and so it’s these that already have a good argument for using
them instead of Agrippa’s planetary characters because they’re already part of a Table of Practice
used for the same ends as the DSIC one, even if it’s of a fundamentally different design. That is,
there would be a good argument if only it weren’t for the fact that the Ars Paulina likely postdates
Agrippa (given its likely Paracelsan origin), and the Magical Calendar definitely postdates Agrippa.
However, I think either set of characters would work, but I would favor the Agrippa set of characters
that Satyr Magos uses. However, Joseph Peterson mentions in his notes to the Lemegeton 54 that the
characters from the Ars Paulina, given the connections that the Ars Paulina also has with book II
of the Steganographia of Johannes Trithemius (actually the real author instead of his likely-spurious
association to DSIC), may well give this latter set of characters a stronger argument.
While it’d be great to have the name, glyph, and character(s) of the planet as well as the name
and seal of the angel, Fr. Acher pointed out in his design of his own table that it’s. . . just kinda
too much. Plus, it also raises the issue of the fact that the four kings have only names and neither
characters nor seals (unless you want to go with the really intricate seals from the Clavis Inferni 55 ,
as Asterion showed on his blog56 , which may not be necessarily recommend for this purpose); we
could use the elemental glyphs, but that seems weird to me, as the four kings are more about the
four corners of the Earth rather than the four elements. If we wanted to make everything follow the
same standard, we’d use only the names of the angels and planets and the names of the kings with
no other glyphs or seals or characters, because that’s something they all have, but that certainly
47 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22
48 https://journeythroughtheobsidiandream.wordpress.com/
49 https://journeythroughtheobsidiandream.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/tables-and-triangles/
50 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1b.htm#chap33
51 https://magiapragmatica.blogspot.com/
52 http://www.esotericarchives.com/mc/index.html
53 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/paulina.htm
54 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/lemegeton.htm#paulina
55 https://www.amazon.com/Grimoire-St-Cyprian-Sourceworks-Ceremonial/dp/0738723487
56 http://solomonicmagic.blogspot.com/2014/02/four-rulers.html

51
Figure 27: Satyr Magos’ Table of Practice design.

52
Figure 28: Erneus’ Table of Practice design.

53
misses DSIC’s explicit instruction to engrave them with the “seals or characters” of the planets
and/or the angels. If we interpret the “seal or character” of the planet to just be that planet’s
glyph, as GTSC appears to do, then that makes the process much easier and cleaner for us, and it
avoids having to cram in several batches of things into a tight space, but I don’t like that approach;
it seems to stretch what is normally meant by “seal or character”. But, including the planetary
characters, if we weren’t going to go with the seal/sigil like how Fr. Acher did (which is super
detailed and can be hard to do on some surfaces with sufficient clarity) would mean we’d either
need either a very large table or a very small font to get everything written in.
Thinking on this for myself, just to consider the planetary elements of the design of the table,
I would include the glyphs for the planet, the strings of planetary characters from Agrippa, and
the name of the angel; those would be my priorities. The glyph of the planet basically stands in
for and is synonymous with the name (and indeed is read as the name itself in many occult texts),
and the planetary characters help to give the planetary power to the table as their “seals”, much
as in the same way the names of the four kings lend their power to the table as well. As for the
angels, the angelic names are more important for me than their seals; after all, you don’t need a
spirit’s seal to conjure them so long as you have their name, and so long as you have their name,
you can develop any number of sigils for that name by which you can conjure them as effectively
(or nearly so). Plus, on the lamen itself (which we’ll discuss in the future), it’s the name that’s
given the most prominence rather than the seal, which is comparatively hidden and nestled inside
the hexagram. It’s not that we want to bring the full presence of the angel to the table, either, but
just their attention; I feel like this is more appropriate for just using their name rather than their
fullness. All this effectively interprets “the names of the seven planets and angels ruling them, with
their seals or characters” as referring to the names, angels, and seals of the seven planets, not the
names and characters of the angels and of the planets, nor the names and characters of the angels
and also of the planets. This final point really is up to just how specifically you want to interpret
the DSIC description here, and is probably the most serious linguistic point of contention between
how different people want to design the table. However, in doing it this way, we also end up with
something that’s on the same scale as the GTSC table combined with Satyr Magos’ design above,
and yields a slightly cleaner and simpler design choice.
Moving on from that, what order do we put the planetary stuff in? There’s no order given in
DSIC for this, but given that the order of the Scale of Seven from Agrippa (book II, chapter 10)57
starts with Saturn and proceeds towards the Moon in descending geocentric distance order, I would
think that order would be the most sensible to use. Of course, you could go the other way, going
from the Moon up to Saturn. I don’t think it actually matters much, but as we’ll see in a bit, I
think there’s a good argument to be made for the descending geocentric distance order, especially as
we’ll see more about in a bit. Fr. AC in GTSC agrees with this, that one should use the descending
order of the planets, and Fr. RO uses this same order in his Modern Angelic Grimoire and RWC.
Both Fr. AC and Fr. RO use the same image in both their respective books to illustrate why this
might be the case, the famous design of the geocentric celestial spheres according to Peter Apian’s
1539 work Cosmographia (see figure 29).
While we’re looking at this diagram, by the way, we also see why Fr. AC used the genitive forms
of the names of the planets in his table design, because that’s what he most likely read according
to this specific diagram. Properly speaking, however? Note the word “COELṼ” (read “coelum”,
literally “heaven”) to the left of the glyph for Saturn; this should be read as “Coelum Saturni”, or
literally “Heaven of Saturn”, and likewise “Coelum Iovis” as “Heaven of Jupiter”. If we just wanted
57 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap10

54
Figure 29: Peter Apian’s Ptolemaic cosmological design.

55
to use the planetary names on their own, we’d write the names in the nominative case instead:
Saturnus, Iovis/Iup(p)iter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercurius, Luna. I’m pretty sure the case-based
linguistics of Latin tripped Fr. AC up, leading him to use the wrong form of the planetary names.
Anyway, back to orders. Interestingly, Fr. RO uses another order instead for SS: going in the
direction of the names of the angels (counterclockwise due to the right-to-left nature of Hebrew)
he uses the order of Saturn, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Moon, Mars, Sun. This doesn’t match the
distance order, weekday order, or even weight order of the planets (according to their planetary
metals, as I discussed once long ago58 , that of Saturn, Mars, Venus, Moon, Jupiter, Sun, Mercury).
First, compare the following two Tables of Practice he put out in figure 30, the older one from RWC
that uses the four archangels and the distance-based order, and the more recent one (posted on his
own Facebook page) that uses the four kings and this new weird order.
I know where he got it from: it’s the association of the planets to the elements and directions
according to Cornelius Agrippa’s Scale of Four. Note how Mercury and Saturn, associated with
Water, are placed by Egyn in the North, associated with Gabriel the angel of Water in his version
of the table; Mars and the Sun, put by Oriens in the East, associated with Michael of Fire; Jupiter
and Venus, put by Paymon in the West, associated with Raphael of Air; and the Moon, put by
Amaymon in the North, associated with Uriel of Earth (along with the fixed stars according to the
Scale of Four, but which aren’t associated with any planetary angel). Though he never mentions
it in SS, this is essentially Fr. RO’s hiding of his old Table of Manifestation layout (see figure 31)
from his earlier stuff59 ; Fr. RO is organizing the planets according to their elemental associations,
according to Agrippa’s Scale of Four (book II, chapter 7)60 . While I wouldn’t call this an order, it
is an arrangement with its own internal logic.
This is classic Fr. RO stuff here. Using this same organization for the Table of Manifestation as
he uses for his Table of Practice is not an approach that I disagree with, given what Fr. RO uses his
Table of Manifestation layout for, but it’s not one I particularly like for the table for DSIC. I still
prefer the descending distance order of the planets, myself, but Fr. RO’s arrangement is definitely
a valid approach if you take a primarily elemental/directional approach to arranging things on the
table from our perspective as incarnate human beings on the Earth—which we necessarily do.
But there’s also one more issue at play here: the specific names to be used. Fr. RO and Fr.
Acher use the Hebrew names as given in Cornelius Agrippa’s Scale of Four; this is simple enough.
However, this isn’t precisely in line with other sets of planetary angel names. Granted, many of
the names are similar, but not identical, and it shows. GTSC, for instance, use the names as
given in the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano61 , and Erneus put out another version of his table
(see figure 32) that uses a faithful Hebrew rendition of the same names rather than those used by
Cornelius Agrippa (note the subtle differences in the Hebrew in the outer ring).
So there’s also some contention about the exact spelling of names. To give a comparison between
the different versions we’re looking at, here’s a table that shows the various spellings that are
common for DSIC Tables of Practice from a variety of sources:

• The Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano, which gives the names in Latin. These are the same
names given in DSIC itself, with the same spellings.
• Cornelius Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy. He gives them in both Hebrew and
58 https://digitalambler.com/2011/12/20/planets-and-stars-the-geometric-kind/
59 http://headforred.blogspot.com/2007/04/31-putting-it-all-together-altar-layout.html
60 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap7
61 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm

56
 (a) Old design.

(b) New design.

Figure 30: Fr. RO’s old and new Table of Practice designs.

57
Figure 31: Fr. RO’s “altar glyph” for his Table of Manifestation.

58
Figure 32: Erneus’ second Table of Practice design.

59
 Latin Hebrew
Planet
Heptameron Agrippa Agrippa Erneus GTSC SS
Saturn Cassiel Zaphkiel ‫צפקיאל‬ ‫קפציאל‬ ‫כאססיאל‬
Jupiter Sachiel Zadkiel ‫צדקיאל‬ ‫זכיאל‬ ‫סאחאל‬
Mars Samael Camael ‫כמאל‬ ‫סמאל‬ ‫סאמאל‬
Sun Michael ‫מיכאל‬
Venus Anael Haniel ‫האניאל‬ ‫ענאל‬ ‫ ענאל‬/ ‫אנאל‬ ‫אנאל‬
Mercury Raphael ‫רפאל‬
Moon Gabriel ‫גבריאל‬ ‫גבראל‬

Table 1: Different spellings of planetary angel names.

Latin transcription.

• Erneus’ version of the table above, which gives them in Hebrew.

• GTSC itself, which gives the names both in Latin and Hebrew. The Latin names are identical
to that of the Heptameron.
• SS itself, which gives the Latin names as given in the Heptameron, but frustratingly, two
different Hebrew spellings: one for the Table of Practice (which agrees with Agrippa), and
another set that appears to be closer to Erneus and GTSC, but with a number of differences,
too.
– There also appear to be some typos: the Hebrew spelling of Gabriel in the Table itself
matches everything else, but the lamen omits the letter Yod (giving us “Gabrel”), and
the Hebrew spelling of Haniel in the Table uses an initial Aleph instead of Heh (giving
us “Aniel”). I won’t mention these typos as specific spelling differences, however.
– Annoyingly, RWC (the old Gates texts upon which SS was based) use a different set of
spellings on some of the lamens themselves, but which agree with Agrippa’s Hebrew: the
angel of Saturn is given as ‫צדקיאל‬, that of Jupiter ‫צפקיאל‬, and that of Mars ‫כמאל‬. Oddly,
the typo of Gabriel as lacking the letter Yod in his lamen is still present.

This gets us the messy table 1 to compare a variety of all these angel spelling names, with the
following notes:

• Agrippa renders Tzaddi as “Z” according to the custom at the time of Hebrew transcription,
so his Latin transliterations of his Hebrew names should probably more accurately read “Tza-
phkiel” and “Zadkiel”. Likewise, he renders Qoph as “K”, which would give us an even more
faithful rendition of these names as “Tzaphqiel” and “Tzadqiel”.
• Mistake in Agrippa’s text; Agrippa has “Zaphiel” (or, reading Z as Tzaddi, “Tzaphiel”), omit-
ting the Qoph. “Zaphkiel” (or “Tzaphqiel”) is given in Agrippa’s Scale of Ten, as expected.
• Agrippa swaps Michael and Raphael in his tables such that Raphael becomes the angel of the
Sun and Michael the angel of Mercury, which is definitely a thing seen in many grimoires of

60
 the time, which is also repeated in his Scale of Twelve when it comes to the corresponding
sephiroth. I swapped them back to fit in with modern/conventional practice.
• The Hebrew spelling ‫ קפציאל‬of the angel of Saturn in Erneus and GTSC would more faithfully
be transliterated as “Qaptziel” and could arguably be transliterated into Latin as “Cassiel”
(← Qassiel ← Qafsiel ← Qaptziel, account for the Hebrew combination of the /f/ and /p/
sounds). While reasonable on its own, I can’t help but wonder if this is a case of propagated
dyslexia, because swapping Qoph and Tzaddi here gets you the same spelling as in Agrippa.
• GTSC gives two Hebrew spellings for the angel of Venus, one that starts with ‘Ayin and one
that starts with ’Aleph.
• Fr. RO seems to have naïvely transliterated the names from the Heptameron back into Hebrew
for SS, as some of these spellings seem really unlikely.
There’s a lot more variation in the Hebrew spellings because we don’t really have consistent or
reliable Hebrew spellings for these angel names besides what’s given in Agrippa; the usual approach,
it would seem, is to take the Latin names from the Heptameron and back-transliterate them into
Hebrew, which gets us such varied results. I don’t much care for this approach, honestly, but it’s
not an unreasonable one, especially if you can trace back the root meanings of the theophoric names
or use a bit of numerological magic to finagle them into shape. I haven’t really seen a lot of reliable
and historical Hebrew spellings for these angels besides Agrippa, but that might just be my own
lack of literature and infamiliarity with texts that others might be more familiar with.
With all these variants above, what would I recommend? Honestly, since I’m not sure where
the Hebrew spellings of the angels came from in Agrippa, or whether they shared an origin with
the Latin ones and one set or the other got corrupt, or one set formed the root for the other via
transliteration. While the spelling of the angel ought to matter, I think practice shows that all
these names are, even if they are fundamentally different, just synonyms for the same spirit, so that
Cassiel is Qaptziel is Tzaphqiel; heck, “Cassiel” itself is such a problematic name, as it was spelled
in so many damn ways in the old grimoires, including Captiel, Caffriel, and Cafriel (cf. the Munich
Manual entry on planetary conjurations62 , which has the same origin as the Heptameron of Pietro
d’Abano); this could be explained as misreading the lowercase “f” as a long s (making the original
spelling like Caffiel which was reinterpreted as Cassiel) or the other way around.
My recommendation, at the end of the day, is to pick a set of names from a single source that
you like and stick with it. Experience and reports from many magicians the world over show that
they all basically work. That said, if you wanted to go with Hebrew, I don’t suggest Fr. RO’s
Hebrew spellings from SS. As much as I love the man, I wouldn’t trust these spellings here. They
don’t match the spelling pronunciation rules that are typically used for Hebrew, even for magical
names; I’d recommend most going with either Agrippa or GTSC for the Hebrew spellings.
And, one more final note about writing the names themselves and in what script. Given the
late origin of DSIC and the fact that the four kings don’t have a readily agreed-upon spelling in
Hebrew, it’s probably best for the sake of uniformity to use the Latin spellings of all the names on
the table. Consider, after all, that all the names and words for the wand, pedestal, and lamen are
written in Latin; it follows that those on the table should be, too. Again, this might have been an
innovation by Fr. RO and/or Fr. Acher, who used Hebrew for the names of the angels and, in Fr.
Acher’s case, the planets. However, the lamen design from DSIC does have the name of “Michael”
emblazoned on it in Hebrew as well as in Latin, so. . . I think it could go either way.
62 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/munich-manual/planetary-conjurations/

61
 If, however, you choose to use Hebrew, at least for the angelic names, then there’s also the
option of either using plain old square script that Hebrew is normally and conventionally written
in, or the use of the Celestial Script63 as described by Agrippa (book III, chapter 30)64 , which I
personally like doing for planetary, stellar, and celestial angels generally (though I give the square
script to the elemental angels as well as the honest-to-God truly-divine seven archangels, but that’s
another topic for another day). The Celestial Script is just another form of Hebrew, using more
angular lines and ring-marks to imitate both constellation lines on star maps as well as the ring-
mark characters on a variety of magical literature from the classical and medieval periods; this was
either introduced or propagated later on by Agrippa with other magical scripts of the time. While
I like using Celestial for writing the names of the planetary angels, I seem to be an outlier in that
(except for when I see people using my own designs); Fr. RO doesn’t advocate for this use in either
SS or RWC explicitly for his Table of Practice, but I believe I got the idea from the discussion
groups in his class (I think). It made sense to me at the time, given that these entities are celestial
beings, and Fr. RO does use the Celestial script for the names of the planetary angels on the lamens
themselves. I just followed suit and used the same font for the table, as well.
And then, related to this point about linguistics, there’s the Fr. AC’s decision in GTSC to spell
the four kings out in Greek, which. . . honestly I don’t understand, and which he doesn’t explain.
I’d just use the Latin spellings, honestly, especially as we don’t know whether, for instance, Paimon
should be spelled in Greek script with an ōmega or omikron (ΠΑΙΜΩΝ or ΠΑΙΜΟΝ). Strangely,
Fr. AC spells it ΠΑΥΜΟΝ, interpreting the Latin spelling of “Paymon” to use the equivalent Greek
letters, but that’d interpret the Latin “y” as a Greek upsilon, which would give it a pronunciation
more like “paow-mon” or “pav-mon”; ditto for Amaymon (“ah-maow-mon” or “ah-mahv-mon”). I
think these are both errors, to be honest; after all, Latin y is not the same letter with the same
pronunciation as Greek upsilon. Consider, further, that the name Amaymon comes from the Arabic
jinn Maymūn (spelled mı̄m-yā’-mı̄m-wāw-nūn), meaning it should be an “i” sound (Greek iōta, Latin
i or y) rather than a “u” sound (which Greek upsilon would imply). It also ignores the fact that
the name “Oriens” is literally just the Latin word for the direction East. But, even more than that,
it also goes against his own reasoning in GTSC for using the Latin names of the angels instead of
Hebrew:

I debated for a time whether I wanted to use English, Hebrew, or angelic script for the
names of the angels and the planets. I believe any of these choices are valid and would
be appropriate. However, I eventually settled on the English versions, since this is the
language I will be requiring the angels to speak in.

Honestly, to avoid any such confusion, I’d recommend spelling at least the names of the four
kings in Latin, and neither guess at what their Greek or Hebrew counterparts would be. The other
names for the angels, both elemental and planetary, could be spelled in any such language or font,
but there’s a strong argument to be made to just use the Latin versions of the names (using the
English alphabet, which is functionally equivalent) for them all for the sake of standardization and
to go along with Fr. AC’s reasoning.
63 https://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/angelic.htm
64 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3c.htm#chap30

62
2.3.3 Putting the Table Together
Now that we have our choice of names, symbols, signs, and everything else out of the way, how do
we actually put them all together? DSIC tells us:

. . . Let them be all written within a double circle, with a triangle on a table; on which
place the crystal on its pedestal: this being done, thy table is complete (as in the Fig.
D,) and fit for the calling of the spirits. . .

The major thrust of this is describing something that surprises nobody: a triangle within a
circle. While I can’t actually cite anyone specifically that might say so (because this is something
that I feel is pretty common at this point to say and think), the triangle and circle is pretty much the
mainstay of the locus of conjuration. We see, basically, the same thing in the Triangle of Art from
the Lemegeton Goetia, just with the circle inside the triangle instead of outside it (see figure 33).

Figure 33: The Triangle of Art from the Lemegeton Goetia.

The general thinking on this is that the effectively circle binds the spirit (because the circle is a
shape that has no end to its lines, or corners to slip through, but an infinite unbroken boundary),
while the triangle (being the first possible polygon with the fewest possible points/lines) helps to
give the spirit form. But, there’s also the fact that the triangle, being a shape with three sides,
is also qabbalistically connected by that number to the planet Saturn, which could also suggest
making the spirit more obedient and susceptible to our threats and demands. It’s reminiscent of
what Agrippa says in his Fourth Book when dealing with “evil spirits” whose oaths or statements
you doubt (book IV, chapter 12)65 :

And after all the courses are finished, then cease a little; and if any Spirit shall appear, let
the Invocant turn himself towards the Spirit, and courteously receive him, and earnestly
entreating him, let him first require his name, and if he be called by any other name;
and then proceeding further, let him ask him whatsoever he will: and if in any thing the
Spirit shall shew himself obstinate or lying, let him be bound by convenient conjurations:
and if you doubt of any lye, make without the Circle with the consecrated Sword, the
figure of a triangle or pentagon, and compel the Spirit to enter into it; and if thou
receivest any promise which thou wouldst have to be confirmed with an Oath, let him
65 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12

63
 stretch the sword out of the Circle, and swear the Spirit, by laying his hand upon the
Sword.

Here Agrippa uses either a triangle (figure of Saturn) or a pentagon (figure of Mars), though he
might also mean “pentagram” instead (but which would suggest a pentagon in its center by virtue
of its geometrical shape), and considering the context here, I’d be more inclined to think that the
triangle isn’t used so much to help the spirit take physical form as much as it is constrain it, at least
according to Agrippa. Your mileage may vary. It is interesting, however, that Agrippa describes
no such device for working with “good spirits” earlier in the Fourth Book when he mentions how to
call upon “good spirits” using either his prayer-based approach or his ecstasy approach (book IV,
chapter 10)66 . (We’ll see more of this weirdness in future posts about the difference in approach
between “good spirits” and “evil spirits”.)
All well and good, but there’s that phrase “double circle”. It seems that everyone who’s worked
with Drawing Spirits Into Crystals DSIC, whether or not they use the pedestal, interprets this to
mean that there are two rings of names, one for the planets and angels (along with “their seals
or characters”), and one for the four elemental kings inside that; this is the form of table that’s
used by everyone that I’ve ever seen. In this system, the four kings are placed evenly spaced on
the inner ring aligned with the four elements, typically with Oriens (or Michael) aligned with the
Sun towards the East. For the sake of simplicity for now, let’s use a very basic table design that
spells all the names out in the Latin script, uses the four kings instead of the four archangels, and
uses only the glyphs of the seven planets along with the names of their corresponding angels (see
figure 34.
And, of course, there’s at least one interpretation out there that puts the four kings on the
outside, with the seven planets on the inside. This is certainly a far more uncommon arrangement
(most people would cosmologically place the planets “higher up” and the elemental/worldly “further
down”), and I’ve only ever seen one such Table of Practice design67 made by Eryk Adish on Etsy68
(see figure 35).
But. . . on a closer reading of the phrasing being used here, and thinking back to other texts that
use similar phrasing, I’m not entirely certain that this double-ring-of-names setup is what the text
actually implies. I mean, it makes graphical sense, but “double circle” may not mean two circles
of names, but rather, two geometric circles between which the names are written. In this case, I
think what DSIC is suggesting is that we have only one ring of names and seals, which is bounded
on the outside and on the inside by a circle; these two circles would be the “double circle” within
which would be all the things we’d be engraving.
In this case, we’d need to figure out an order for placing the names of the four kings into this,
as well, since these things must be given “in order”. I think we should tie this into the order of
the planets we mentioned above, and seeing how the four kings (being representatives of the four
elements) come after the planets, it suggests that there’s a notion of density at play here: the
further we get along in the order, the denser we get. This argues in favor of starting with Saturn,
then proceeding to Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, and then to the Moon, and then the four
kings. What order for the kings? Keep the order going in terms of density: Oriens (Fire), Paimon
(Air), Egyn (Water), Amaymon (Earth). This would use the elemental domains of the four kings
rather than their directions; if we were to go clockwise starting with Oriens in the East (to befit a
66 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10
67 https://www.etsy.com/listing/665142402/trithemius-conjure-kit-custom-order-for
68 https://www.etsy.com/shop/ErykAdish

64
Figure 34: A simple Table of Practice design.

65
Figure 35: Eryk Adish’ Table of Practice.

66
diagram (see figure 29; look closely at the elemental patterns in the center of the diagram).
That said, even though that might be a strict interpretation of “let them be all written within
a double circle”, that might be a little too strict and literal. It kinda breaks with this notion we
have that the four kings are a species apart from the planetary angels, that the elements of this
world are of a different nature than the planets of the spheres above; while, yes, it can be reasoned
out to make everything “fit” within one ring of names, it’s probably more graphically pleasing and
cosmologically sound to use two rings of names, writing everything essentially “within a triple circle”
instead of a double circle, with the planetary engravings on the outer ring and the four kings (or
four archangels, if that’s your jam) on the inside. However, the DSIC text says what it says.
In either case, using either two rings of names or one ring, in the inside of all the above would
be the triangle. Though DSIC doesn’t specify where or how it should be drawn, it makes sense to
have the innermost circle circumscribe the triangle. Given the description in DSIC, there’s nothing
to be engraved inside the triangle, nor outside the triangle and inside the inner circle. This is
probably the easiest part to interpret from a lack of depiction and description of the entire DSIC
introduction, and completes the construction of the table itself.
In that light, let’s compare the one-ring design (see figure 36) with the two-ring design (see fig-
ure 34)), with the planetary order of decreasing geocentric distance followed by increasing elemental
density. Let’s agree to use the four kings for this, and for the sake of a simple construction as above,
we’ll limit ourselves to using the names of the four kings, the glyphs of the planets, and the names
of the the planetary angels, all spelled out in Latin script, with nothing else. The two-ring design
in figure 34 has the planetary stuff and the four kings given in the conventional layout with two
rings, the outer ring for the planetary stuff and the inner ring for the demon kings, but the one-ring
design in figure 36 with just one ring of names “all written within a double circle” follows from a
strict and literal interpretation of DSIC, and. . . it works. It makes sense. We start at the bottom
and, going clockwise, proceed through the four kings (in order of their corresponding element based
on zodiacal direction), then the seven planets/angels, proceeding from the Moon/Gabriel and going
up to Saturn/Cassiel. This works, and is entirely a valid way to construct a table according to
the instructions given in DSIC in the absence of any illustration. Plus, it also reminds me of the
conjuration circles used in texts like the Grimorium Verum, Grand Grimoire, and Grimoire of Pope
Honorius, though admittedly those were intended for the conjurer to stand in, not for the basis of
the conjuration area for the spirit. Still, using this single-ring approach does make sense, it follows
from the DSIC text, and is an entirely valid approach to creating the table.
But, despite its cleanliness and orderliness. . . it’s taking me a while to like it. While it does
appeal to me, it seems that literally nobody has ever used this interpretation of what “double
circle” means. Not that it’s unbalanced, but it does feel a bit mismatched to put the four kings
in the same ring as the seven angels, on top of it probably feeling unfamiliar and with me not
recognizing this as a proper table. I think it would make more graphical sense to more people, at
least, to interpret “double circle” as two circles of names, not one ring of names written between two
circles, but that’s not a strict and contemporaneous interpretation of DSIC. For the sake of keeping
the conversation going, I’m going to stick to the two-circles-of-names and not one-ring-of-names-
in-two-circles design, because that’s what makes the most immediate cosmological and aesthetic
sense to me. That said, if you were to take a single Table of Practice approach that uses the four
archangels instead of the four kings. . . that could well be appropriate. We said before last post that
figuring out what “seals or characters” would be needed for the planetary parts of the table design
was the most serious linguistic point of contention, but I stand corrected: it’s this, at least for the
table (there are others which we’ll talk about when we get to that point of our DSIC discussion).

67
Figure 36: A simple table design.

68
Despite putting the lid on the single-ring design, we’ll come back to it at a later time; for now, we’ll
stick to the two-ring design, only for the sake of expediency and it’s what everyone already knows,
likes, and wants.
But while we’re here, there is one plausible reason I can think of for putting the four kings on the
same “level” as the seven planetary angels. Given their nature, and considering their potentially old
predecessors going back to Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian times, this is actually something to
consider: the four kings could be considered survivals of the “four winds” from ancient Mesopotamian
times, which were considered deities in their own right and on the same level as the planetary gods
of those cultures. If we consider the role of the four kings here and what they’re doing based on
what we said before, and consider also Agrippa (book III, chapter 24)69 , my emphasis in bold text:

. . . every one of these Spirits is a great Prince, and hath much power and freedom in
the dominion of his own planets, and signs, and in their times, years, months,
days, and hours, and in their Elements, and parts of the world, and winds. . .

. . . and if we consider the role of the seven planetary angels here to channel and distill their respective
planetary forces in a way that the kings would the worldly, elemental forces, then it makes sense
that the four kings here would be included with the seven planetary angels. This would mean that
the table isn’t necessarily a cosmogram or anything to show how everything is ideally arranged, but
that the presence (and support) of the seven planetary angels and four kings of the world would
collectively help to channel, focus, and materialize the spirit in the crystal as visibly and physically
as possible, lending it a share of all the forces that combine to manifest everything in this world.
In other words, the presence of these spirits isn’t about the actual planetary and elemental forces,
but about the spheres of heaven and four corners of the world, using distinctly worldly processes to
bring something to manifest within the triangle; consider how the Circle of Art from the Lemegeton
Goetia has the snake with all the divine names and attributes of the ten sephiroth of the Tree of
Life curling inward towards the center.
On top of that, the “four winds” of back then were assigned to the four zodiac signs of Scorpio
(or Aquila), Aquarius, Taurus, and Leo—the four fixed signs, which later became identified with
the four archangels Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, and Michael. In this light, this means that not only the
four kings can (and arguably should) be arranged with the seven planetary angels, but that they
would, reaching back to their shared origin, be essentially interchangeable with the four archangels.
Not a bad idea, and another point in favor of those who would use the four archangels instead of
the four kings on their DSIC tables.
Anyway, let’s continue. If we were to go with our earlier design choice of using the planetary
glyphs, the planetary characters, the names of the angels, and the names of the kings, with the
names written in Latin, we’d get the following for our one ring and two ring forms as seen in
figure 38. Forgive me for having to bunch up the (more numerous) characters for the Sun and
Jupiter, but I didn’t want to rebalance all of the spacing for all this just yet. The idea is there,
though.
You can envision what it’d be like for incorporating the angelic seals, too, based on this; smaller
font, smaller characters, and a lot more densely-packed use of space on the outer ring. But, despite
all the complexity here, I think this is closer to what DSIC is actually instructing us to do:

. . . the table on which the crystal stands the following names, characters, &c. must be
drawn in order. First, The names of the seven planets and angels ruling them, with
69 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3b.htm#chap24

69
Figure 37: The Circle and Triangle of Art from the Lemegeton Goetia.

70
Figure 38: A more complicated table design.

71
 their seals or characters. The names of the four kings of the four corners of the earth.
Let them be all written within a double circle, with a triangle on a table. . .

But, in the end, there you have it. More table designs for use with DSIC based on different yet
equally strict and accurate interpretations of the rather terse instructions given by the text itself.
Whugh. That took a lot more words, explanation, surveying, and arguing with Adobe Illustrator
than I expected, to be sure.
Now, in light of everything above? Given the lack of explanation of the table in DSIC, as well
as the fact that there’s no visual depiction given, along with the level of specificity that is given to
the pedestal itself, I want to make the claim that the specific design used for table itself probably
doesn’t matter that much, honestly. It seems like the real focus in DSIC is given to the pedestal
supporting the crystal with the names and symbols to be engraved around it, with the table itself
being described almost as an afterthought. In that light, it’s not the table doing the bulk of the
protective and spiritual work as far as providing for the right woogity in the ritual (besides the
magician themselves, of course), but the pedestal itself. If we were to actually give credence to the
notion that Johannes Trithemius wrote DSIC (and, personally, I don’t), well. . . recall that he was
an abbot, and thus would be more inclined towards religious magic of a higher and more theurgical
nature rather than goetia or necromancy, and recall how we likened the pedestal to a monstrance.
In that light, the shape and purpose of the pedestal makes a lot of sense: it’s a monstrance not
for displaying the Host or relics, but the presence of actual spirits themselves; the table should be
decked out in the signs and symbols of the seven planets and four elements to facilitate the presence
of spirits, sure, but beyond that, I don’t know whether DSIC really cares as much about the table
as about the pedestal. Honestly, if somehow you got the money and means to get one, my hunch
is that even the use of an actual monstrance that once held a consecrated Host would alone be
sufficient, with a crystal or some material held in the chamber, to perform DSIC with, even without
a table or names of angels or kings or whatnot; if you can get such a mosntrance and use it on a
table, all the better.
Note that I’m not saying that the table doesn’t matter at all; if it didn’t matter, DSIC would
probably say as much, or even just decline to mention anything about the table at all. But so long
as the basic idea of the table is there—a triangle circumscribed by two circles, along with planetary
names/angels/characters and names of elemental kings (or elemental angels if that’s the route you
want to take)—then I think you’ve got enough of what you need to perform the DSIC ritual. Heck,
I’m not 100% convinced (more like 99%) that you need the planetary stuff and the names of the
kings at all, honestly, so long as you’ve got the appropriate pedestal made in the appropriate way.
There’s nothing saying you shouldn’t use them, of course, and I’m not making that claim either,
but I don’t think it’s as necessary or as important to the spirit of DSIC than having the pedestal.
So, then, why do we focus on the table, or as we like to call it, the Table of Practice? Because so
many of us like simplicity, and let’s be honest: it’s a lot simpler to have a single tool (one Table of
Practice) than two tools (table and pedestal), and it’s a lot simpler to have a free-standing crystal
ball than having to set it in something else, which requires some specialty crafting skills that not
everyone has. Heck, already not a lot of people have the crafting skills necessary to make even a
rudimentary Table of Practice, despite that it’s not that hard to do. Since DSIC-compatible Tables
of Practice began being made about ten years ago, until the advent of Fr. AC’s reintroduction of
the pedestal as a separate item, the general approach has largely been focused on combining the
designs of the pedestal with the table into a single Table of Practice, and that approach is workable
enough, simple enough, and effective enough to do what DSIC claims to do.

72
 Those readers of mine who somehow maintained their mental acuity after all this time that I’m
only just now using the phrase “Table of Practice”. When it comes to the DSIC method on its
own terms, of which Fr. AC tends to hit closest to the mark, DSIC says to use both a table and a
pedestal; however, when the pedestal and table are combined into something like what Fr. RO (and
Fr. Acher, and the Scribbler, and Satyr Magos, and myself, etc.) uses, then you get the Table of
Practice. I’m using the phrase “Table of Practice” to refer to the single-apparatus approach instead
of the dual-apparatus approach of table and pedestal, and I think that might help clarify some of
the language around all this stuff.
The three symbols of the hexagram with central Yod, the pentagram, and the cross are placed
in the corners of the central table triangle, while the use of the name Tetragrammaton tends to get
dropped out, though some magicians engrave circularly around the triangle in the gap between the
triangle and the (inner) ring of names. The names of the angels from the pedestal either get left
out entirely or replace the names of the four kings, making those names left out; I’ve never seen a
Table of Practice that has both the four angels and the four kings. I’ve seen only one such example
of this from the blogger tyetknot (see figure 39), and it puts the names of the angels in the same
ring as that of the kings on tyetknot’s Tumblr70 but in a way that doesn’t follow much with the
directions we should see (Raphael in the North? Uriel in the West?), and though I get the logic
behind it, that doesn’t seem to mesh well with me.
But what would it look like if a Table of Practice did have both sets of names that did agree with
the nature of the tools that DSIC instructs us to use? Given how we’re combining the inscriptions
on the pedestal with the inscriptions on the table, and noting that we combined the three symbols
inside the triangle, this would suggest we should have the four angels inside the triangle as well.
This doesn’t completely surprise me; I mean, we see something similar going on with the Triangle
of Art from the Lemegeton Goetia (see the earlier pictures in this post), after all, with the name
Michael being split into three—and note how it’s fundamentally a table unto itself, consisting of a
circle and triangle and divine names including “Tetragrammaton”.
Further, note how, in the Lemegeton Goetia’s Triangle of Art, there’s a circle inside the triangle
itself. This leads me to a design choice where, just as we can have the names of the four kings on an
inside ring within the ring of planetary angelic names, bounded by a circle above and below it, we
can have the names of the four archangels on a ring within the triangle, bounded by another pair
of circles above and below it. If I were to make a final, let’s-get-it-all-in Table of Practice design,
based on everything above, then we’d end up with the Table of Practice design in figure 40.
This design of the Table of Practice, using two rings as is conventional at this point, with all
the names spelled out in Latin script, has all the elements from both the pedestal and the stand on
a single surface, and even though foregoing the pedestal isn’t true to the instructions in DSIC or
to Fr. AC’s grimoire-strict methodology, this does have all the symbols necessary and in roughly-
equivalent positions, just presented in two dimensions horizontally rather than three dimensions
horizontally and vertically. As a result, this might be the most true-to-the-spirit Table of Practice
for DSIC-type work, should one forego the pedestal, and it also resolves the debate between having
either the names of the four kings or those of the four angels by including both sets of names in an
appropriate location. And, for kicks, let’s do one more design: a final complete Table of Practice
that has all the above plus the twelve zodiacal angels in another ring outside that of the planets
and their angels, with the planetary and zodiacal angel names written in Celestial Hebrew, as seen
in figure 41.
It is weird, I admit, to have the four archangels “underneath” the four kings, but I’m not trying
70 https://tyetknot.tumblr.com/post/178395728883/the-last-coat-of-varnish-is-drying-on-a-new-table

73
Figure 39: tyetknot’s Table of Practice.

74
Figure 40: An even more complicated Table of Practice design.

75
Figure 41: An even more complicated Table of Practice design.

76
to represent a vertical relationship anymore once we get under the four kings. Remember that
everything in and around the triangle comes from the design of the pedestal, which is supposed to
be stand above the table; if we do away with the pedestal (and it’s not true to DSIC to do so), then
we should still make an effort to keep the same symbols from it onto the table to make a combined
Table of Practice. It’s common enough to do this by putting the three symbols of the hexagram
with central Yod, pentagram, and cross into the corners of the triangle, but those could just as
easily go outside the triangle, too; the circumscribed “Tetragrammaton” is unheard of in the way
depicted above, either, but I’ve never seen anyone include both the four kings as well as the four
angels. While one could restructure the Table of Practice to put planetary angels on the outside,
the four archangels inside them, and the four kings inside them, I think putting the archangels
closest to the center of the Table of Practice makes more sense because those are supposed to be
closest near the crystal.
One more conjecture at this point, now that I’ve plowed through enough Illustrator work for
one day. Now that I think about it. . . well, remember what I pointed out about the Triangle of
Art from the Lemegeton above? It’s fundamentally the same thing as the table: a triangle and a
circle with some divine names written around it. If you had a properly-constructed pedestal—or
a consecrated monstrance—you could probably just plop that on the Triangle of Art and it would
work as well. After all, nobody’s complained about the Triangle of Art lacking kings or angels or
planets and it’s been used for goetic conjurations for quite some time, and they’ve gotten great
results with that tool, despite the lack of planetary stuff or the four kings. My hunch is that you
could use just a regular, simple, boring Triangle of Art and a properly-made stand for the crystal
and it would be sufficient for DSIC ritual use, omitting everything above about the specific needs
of the table from DSIC despite what DSIC says about it. That’s just a conjecture, but given some
of the discussions above, I think there’s a good logic to it that could well be experimented with for
those who have a pedestal or monstrance.

2.4 The Lamen

The biggest challenge in implementing DSIC is the table upon which the pedestal sits (the GTSC
approach), or if you prefer to forego the pedestal and lump its designs into the table, creating a
Table of Practice to perform the conjuration by (the SS approach). The reason why this is so
challenging is that DSIC only gives the briefest of descriptions about the table without giving an
example of how it should look, as well as the pedestal where only one half of it is shown. But, once
we get the table and pedestal and/or the Table of Practice out of the way, the rest of the text’s
tools and methods becomes a lot easier to grok and implement. As a reminder, check out figure 1
for the design schema of the DSIC tools.
Today, let’s (finally) move on from the table/pedestal/Table of Practice talk and get on with
the other implements, and specifically, let’s talk about the lamen. What even is a lamen? The
word itself is (supposedly) Latin, meaning “plate” as in “breastplate”, and typically refers to a wide
or large flat thing worn as a pendant suspended from the neck on top of the chest. In conjuration
rituals, there are plenty of different types of lamens, as many as there are grimoires; sometimes the
lamen is specifically attuned to a particular spirit to be worked with, sometimes it’s just a general
design used to protect the person who wears it in all conjurations.
The lamen of DSIC is of the former type above, where it’s described. . . well, it isn’t, really. DSIC
mentions the lamen once, and not even by that term:

Then taking your ring and pentacle, put the ring on the little finger of your right hand;

77
 hang the pentacle round thy neck ; (Note, the pentacle may be either wrote on clean
virgin parchment, or engraven on a square plate of silver and suspended from thy neck
to the breast), then take your black ebony wand, with the gilt characters on it and trace
the circle. . .

That’s it. There’s no description given in DSIC about the lamen at all, besides the illustration
given. That’s it. There’s no description given in DSIC about the lamen at all, besides the illustration
given. So, what do we see as far as that?

• A ring of divine names (El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebaoth, Elion, Escherchie, Adonai, Jah, Jehovah,
Tetragrammaton, Saday, Yod, Ehevi)

• A squiggle at the end of the names

• Inside the ring of divine names, the following:
– The name of the angel Michael, given in (wobbly wonky) Hebrew square script
– A hexagram underneath the Hebrew name
– Six pentagrams, one each between the arms of the hexagram
– The name Michael written in Latin along with the seal of the angel Michael

So. . . where do we go from here? First, note that the text says “the pentacle”, not “the lamen” or
“the holy table” like what the DSIC illustration says. Nobody has ever said or suggested anything
else but that the pentacle refers to anything but the lamen, as even Joseph Peterson of Esoteric
Archives says in his notes on the ritual that “the lamin [sic] is also referred to in the text as ‘the
pentacle” ’. This makes sense, as there’s no other mention of anything else that could be the lamen
in the ritual text itself. Remember this, because we’ll touch on this later on in a future post.
For comparison, let me show what I’ve been using this whole time. I’ve made two forms of
lamens in the past based on my work with Fr. RO’s RWC and SS, one closer to the DSIC form and
one of my own style that I like a bit better for stylistic reasons. I present both styles, old and new,
in figure 42, made according to the names and rules given by Fr. RO, using Celestial script for the
angelic name instead of square script Hebrew.

2.4.1 The Lamen Design of Agrippa

It’s important to recall that DSIC was not written in a vacuum. Heck, even as far as derivative
late Solomonic works, DSIC isn’t really a complete text on its own. Yes, if you know how to read
between the lines and take the Arbatel approach of “real magicians already know what to do with
this”, then you can figure out what to change and what to replace in order to conjure other spirits,
but even then, DSIC has a lot going on behind the scenes that isn’t apparent in the text. We know
that DSIC makes its (almost certainly likely) appearance in Francis Barrett’s The Magus, which
was largely plagiarized from a whole bunch of other texts, especially the Three Books and Fourth
Book of Occult Philosophy of Henrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim.
In that context, what DSIC is actually presenting makes a lot of sense. Consider that Agrippa’s
Three Books provides a true wealth of information about, well, occult philosophy: the occult-yet-
natural virtues of various things in our world, the spiritual significance and meaning behind so
many of the things occultists and magicians do, the cosmologies and structures that underlie occult

78
 (a) Old version.

(b) New version.

Figure 42: Two forms of the lamen for the angel Michael of the Sun.

79
practice and worldviews, and a general overview of different approaches to the divine and to the
occult that were used in both antique and (then) modern times. However, despite all this, Agrippa
only provided information about the occult that could be used in rituals, without providing any
rituals to actually use. That’s where the Fourth Book comes into play; this book, which may well
be spurious and not actually penned by Agrippa himself, especially since it appeared thirty years
after Agrippa’s death and given that one of Agrippa’s students denounced its attribution to his
teacher.
Regardless of its origins, it does tie into and build upon the Three Books by giving a bit
more meat of actual occult practice, at least where the conjuration and interfacing with spirits is
concerned, and gives actual implements and practices to use. The short text begins (my emendations
for modern style and spelling):
In our Books of Occult Philosophy, we have not so compendiously, as copiously, de-
clared the principles, grounds, and reasons of Magic itself, and after what manner the
experiments thereof are to be chosen, elected, and compounded, to produce many won-
derful effects; but because in those books they are treated of, rather theoretically, then
practically; and some also are not handled completely and fully, and others very figura-
tively, and as it were Enigmatically and obscure Riddles, as being those which we have
attained unto with great study, diligence, and very curious searching and exploration,
and are heretofore set forth in a more rude and unfashioned manner. Therefore in this
book, which we have composed and made as it were a Complement and Key of our
other books of Occult Philosophy, and of all Magical Operations, we will give unto you
the documents of holy and undefiled verity, and inexpugnable and irresistible magical
discipline, and the most pleasant and delectable experiments of the sacred deities. So
that as by the reading of our other books of Occult Philosophy, you may earnestly cover
the knowledge of these things; even so with reading this book, you shall truly triumph.
Wherefore let silence hide these things within the secret closets of your religious heart,
and conceal them with constant taciturnity.
This also explains why the Fourth Book also included other texts, such as Agrippa’s “On Ge-
omancy” and non-Agrippan texts including the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano, the Isagoge, Of
Astronomical Geomancy of Gerard of Cremona, and the Arbatel, all of which serve to fulfill an
all-around practice of magic for someone in Agrippa’s day in the 1500s and early 1600s. However,
even then, the Fourth Book could only be used as a guide to spiritual works and conjurations of
spirits if someone knew how to piece together what was presented there. The rest of the texts could
be used as extensions of this, but if one were to focus just on the Agrippan non-geomantic works,
then there’s not a whole lot to cover; the next best choice would be to use the Heptameron of Pietro
d’Abano, which doesn’t fully line up with what’s given in the Fourth Book.
That’s where DSIC comes into play. If you match up what’s in DSIC with Agrippa’s Fourth
Book, you see more than just a few parallels; it’s as if DSIC was written as a direct implementation
of what’s prescribed for the occult practice of conjuration of spirits in the Fourth Book. Not all of it,
mind you; some of DSIC, especially the prayers, come from other Solomonic texts (including most
certainly the Heptameron but also likely other sources), and some of the equipment isn’t described
in Agrippa that’s used in DSIC. However, of them, the lamen most certainly is.
Using Joseph H. Peterson’s chapter numbering of the Fourth Book, we turn now to book IV,
chapter 1071 which has information “cocnerning the invocation of good and evil spirits”, in the first
71 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10b

80
parts regarding the “Preparation of the place of working and other things to be arranged” generally
and “the holy table and lamen” specifically:

Now the Lamen which is to be used to invoke any good spirit, you shall make after
this manner; either in metal conformable, or in new wax, mixed with species and colors
conformable: or it may be made in clean paper, with convenient colors: and and the
outward form or figure thereof may be square, circular, or triangular, or of the like
sort, according to the rule of the numbers: in which there must be written the divine
names, both the general names as well as the special. And in the center of the Lamen,
let there be drawn a character of six corners (hexagram); in the middle whereof, let
there be written the name and character of the Star, or of the Spirit his governor, to
whom the good spirit that is to be called is subject. And about this character, let there
be placed so many characters of five corners (Pentagram), as the spirits we would call
together at once. And if we shall call only one spirit, nevertheless there shall be made
four Pentagram, wherein the name of the spirit or spirits, with their characters, is to be
written. Now this table ought to be composed when the Moon in increasing, on those
days and hours which then agree to the Spirit. And if we take a fortunate star herewith,
it will be the better. Which Table being made in this manner, it is to be consecrated
according to the rules above delivered.
And this is the way of making the general Table, serving for the invocation of all good
spirits whatsoever. Nevertheless we may make special Tables congruent to every spirit,
by the rule which we have above spoken of concerning holy Pentacles.

(Just to note, even though the text here says that this is the design for the “holy table and
lamen”, the two terms should be considered identical to each other and not with one referring to
the table used to support the pedestal or the Table of Practice, as even the DSIC illustration gives
the caption to the lamen as “the Lamen, or Holy Table of the Archangel Michael”.)
When this refers to “the divine names, both the general names as well as the special”, he’s
referring to an earlier chapter, book IV, chapter 672 on pentacles and sigils:

But we now come to speak of the holy and sacred Pentacles and Sigils. Now these
pentacles, are as it were certain holy signs preserving us from evil chances and events,
and helping and assisting us to bind, exterminate, and drive away evil spirits, and
alluring the good spirits, and reconciling them unto us. And these pentacles do consist
either of Characters of the good spirits of the superior order, or of sacred pictures
of holy letters or revelations, with apt and fit versicles, which are composed either of
Geometrical figures and holy names of God, according to the course and manner of many
of them; or they are compounded of all of them, or very many of them mixed. And
the Characters which are useful for us to constitute and make the pentacles, they are
the Characters of the good Spirits, especially and chiefly of the good spirits of the first
and second order, and sometimes also of the third order. And this kind of Characters
are especially to be named holy; and then those Characters which we have above called
holy. What Character soever therefore of this kind is to be instituted, we must draw
about him a double circle, wherein we must write the name of his Angel: and if we will
add some divine name congruent with his Spirit and Office, it will be of the greater
72 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap6

81
 force and efficacy. And if we will draw about him any angular figure, according to the
manner of his numbers, that also shall be lawful to be done. . . .
. . . Moreover, let there be written about it the ten general names, which are, El, Elohim,
Elohe, Zebaoth, Elion, Escerchie, Adonay, Jah, Tetragrammaton, Saday.

There’s plenty else in the chapter, too, that describe the sorts of pentacles that we’d see from
texts like the Key of Solomon, or like what Balthazar Blacke describes for making custom kabbalistic
seals and pentacles73 . But the above part is what we want to focus on for making lamens, which
constitute a pentacle of sorts for a given kind of spirit. (Also, note that “double circle” phrasing
again. Remember what we talked about when we brought that up for the design of the DSIC table?
I just wanted to point that out again.)
So let’s sum up what Agrippa is saying about the lamen. A lamen should be constructed from
the following:

• A double circle
• Between the two circles, a ring of divine names, both the general (El, Elohim, Elohe, Ze-
baoth, Elion, Escerchie, Adonay, Jah, Tetragrammaton, Saday) as well as any specific ones
(presumably to our spirit we’re conjuring) Inside the ring of divine names in the inner circle,
the following:
– A hexagram, in which is written the name and character of the planet or of the spirit
that governs it
– Four or more pentagrams around the hexagram, each containing the name and character
of the spirits to be conjured that belong to the planet or which are ruled by the spirit
whose own name and character is written in the hexagram

What DSIC is using here as the design for the lamen is basically one interpretation of the
instructions given by Agrippa! First, let’s talk about the divine names. I once brought up a brief
analysis of the names on the lamen as given in DSIC a good long while ago74 , which some might
be interested to read at this point, but let’s focus now on what’s in Agrippa and what’s in DSIC
(and accounting for spelling differences):

Common to both El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebaoth, Elion, Esc(h)erchie, Adona(y/i), Jah, Tetragram-
maton, Saday

Only in Agrippa —
Only in DSIC Jehovah, Yod, Ehevi

It would seem that DSIC uses the same basic set of names that Agrippa suggests as the ten
general names, and adds three more on top of that. This suggests that these three names are specific
for Michael of the Sun in some way, but it’s not entirely clear. If we turn back to the numeric Scales
of Agrippa (book II, chapters 4 through 15) to find what these names might pertain to, then we
get:
73 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_6EjUYR5x0
74 https://digitalambler.com/2011/06/19/thirteen-holy-names-of-the-lamen/

82
Jehovah (YHVH): this is the name of God of four letters above and beyond any else, and features
prominently first in the Scale of Four, which contains references to Michael, especially if we
give the letter Yod (the first letter of the name) to the column in which Michael appears (the
first column of the table).
Yod found in the Scale of One. This is the “one Divine essence, the fountain of all virtues and
power, whose name is expressed with one most simple Letter”, and is associated with the Sun.
Ehevi which doesn’t appear in Agrippa, but Fr. RO interprets this name to be a variant spelling
of Eheieh (AHYH, ‫)אהיה‬, which would be found in the column for Kether in the Scale of Ten;
not exactly specific to the Sun, but it’s a reasonable interpretation. However, based on this
spelling in Latin, we’d expect something like AHVY (‫ )אהוי‬or even HHVY (‫)ההוי‬. This latter
name appears twice in the Scale of Twelve, being a permutation of the Tetragrammaton,
specifically given to. . . Pisces. Okay. However, if we go back to using the spelling Ehevi
and ‫אהוי‬, then we get a name that uses the four letters in Hebrew that can serve as vowels:
aleph, heh, vav, and yod. Given that this name is well known in Hebrew kabbalah75 (in some
cases serving as the name associated with the “left side of Da‘ath” 76 , which I don’t think is a
concept in Hermetic qabbalah) and in many other occult texts, I think it should really should
be “Ehevi” and not “Eheieh” as Fr. RO makes it out to be; Fr. AC keeps this as “Ehevi”.
Yet, I can’t rightly explain why DSIC would use Ehevi here, especially as the name doesn’t
otherwise appear in Agrippa or in Francis Barret’s The Magus. It might be that, from the
earlier entry in The Magus that describes the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano77 which uses a
highly similar list of godnames (“Adonai, El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebaoth, Elion, Eserchie, Jah,
Tetragrammaton, Sadai, Lord God Most High”), that “Ehevi” might be a Hebraicization of
“Lord God Most High” on the part of the author of DSIC.

2.4.2 Planet-Specific Names of God

What’s not clear is whether, based on Agrippa, DSIC proposes to use all these names for all
conceivable lamens or whether we should use the ten general names from Agrippa plus any other
divine names that are associated with the planet or spirit that we’re focusing on. Going down the
Scales in Agrippa, as well as looking at all the different divine names answering to the numbers of
the planets (book II, chapter 22)78 , we can come up with this list of names specific to the planets:
Saturn Vav (if we want to give the third letter of the Tetragrammaton in the Scale of Four to the
third column, containing this planet), YHVH Elohim, Ab, Hod, Yah, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh
Jupiter Heh (if we want to give the second letter of the Tetragrammaton in the Scale of Four to
the second column, containing this planet), El, Abba, Ehi, El Ab
Mars Yod (if we want to give the first letter of the Tetragrammaton in the Scale of Four to the
first column, containing this planet), Elohim Gibor, Heh, Adonai
Sun Yah (if we want to give the first name given in the Scale of Two to the first column, containing
this planet), Yod (if we want to give the first letter of the Tetragrammaton in the Scale of
Four to the first column, containing this planet), Eloh(a/e), Vav, Heh, Eloah
75 https://www.inner.org/names/namehevi.htm
76 https://headcoverings-by-devorah.com/TheNamesOfG_d.html
77 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm
78 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22

83
Venus Heh (if we want to give the second letter of the Tetragrammaton in the Scale of Four to
the second column, containing this planet), YHVH Tzabaoth, Aha
Mercury Vav (if we want to give the third letter of the Tetragrammaton in the Scale of Four to
the third column, containing this planet), Elohim Tzabaoth, Azbogah, Din, Doni
Moon El (if we want to give the second name given in the Scale of Two to the second column,
containing this planet), Heh (if we want to give the fourth letter of the Tetragrammaton in
the Scale of Four to the fourth column, containing this planet), Shaddai, Hod, Elim

Since there’s often some overlap between these names and the ten general divine names Agrippa
says to use in his Fourth Book, the overall lists of names we might want to use—if we wanted to
be completionist about it, and to keep both “Jehovah” and “Ehevi” as general names to make the
overall number twelve, which Agrippa says is a number “of grace and perfection”—then we’d end
up with the following lists of names to use for the planetary lamens (using my preferred spellings):

Saturn El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Ab, Hod, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh
Jupiter El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Heh, Abba, Ehi, Ab
Mars El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Yod, Gibor, Heh
Sun El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Yod
Venus El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Heh, Aha
Mercury El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Vav, Azbogah, Din, Doni
Moon El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Shaddai, Ehevi, Heh, Hod, Elim

Note that I didn’t include some names, like “Elohim Tzbaoth”, because this name is composed of
two words, “Elohim” and “Tzabaoth”, both of which were already included in the ten general names.
In the case of Mars, for which there’s the divine name “Elohim Gibor”, I only added “Gibor”, since
“Elohim” was already present in the general names. Still, even with those considerations, the above
lists are pretty above-and-beyond the completionist. Both Fr. RO and Fr. AC just stick with the
names given in the DSIC lamen (with the Fr. RO substitution of Ehevi with Eheieh), which I think
is fine, but if you wanted to go the extra distance and use planet-specific names for the lamens,
then you’d probably want to consider using the above.
Also, I simply ordered these names by using the general names that Agrippa gives in his Fourth
Book first, then the specific names at the end of that list. In the DSIC example, which has the
order “El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebaoth, Elion, Escherchie, Adonai, Jah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton,
Saday, Yod, Ehevi”, two of the non-general names are at the end (as we would expect using this
method), but one of them (Jehovah) appears earlier on, immediately after Jah. I don’t know why

84
this would be the case; perhaps because Jah and Jehovah are already so similar, that they might
belong together in some way? I dunno. But I think the general rule of giving the specific names at
the end would make sense.
There’s also the matter of the squiggle in the ring of names on the lamen in DSIC. While I’ve
seen some replicate this same squiggle in their own productions of the DSIC lamen (mostly Fr. RO’s
earliest forms of the lamens from RWC), both Fr. AC and the later works of Fr. RO don’t (and when
they agree, I think we know for a fact that this is the proper approach). I think the reason for the
squiggle is easy: when the illustrator of DSIC filled up the ring of names around the lamen, there
was extra leftover space, and given that it’s better to have a filled space than an unsightly blank one
in something like this, a squiggle was used as just a space-filler, nothing more. However, it could
be implied that this space could be used for yet other divine names, but given the construction of
the lamen above, I think we’d’ve already covered that.
So, in the end? You could just use the “general names” that Agrippa describes in his Fourth
Book, or you could use them plus the planet-specific divine names (which aren’t the names of specific
spirits) as he gives in his Second Book. While most magicians who make use of DSIC today (myself
included) just use the set of names on the lamen as the DSIC illustration gives it, I think this may
well be a misstep on our parts, including names that can be considered specifically solar for all
planetary spirits regardless of their planetary affinity. If we just stick with Agrippa’s general divine
names, then we would be good for all spirits no matter what, which might be the safer option.
There’s no way to tell conclusively what the author of DSIC specifically had in mind, but I think
it’s what we’re seeing from Agrippa’s Fourth Book about the general and specific divine names of
God being used.

2.4.3 The Planetary and Spirit-Specific Contents

Now that we’ve gone over the outer ring of names on the lamen, let’s talk about the actual meat
of the thing: the information, names, characters, and layout of all this on the lamen itself. DSIC
itself doesn’t have any text-based description or design of the lamen, but it does give an example
of one for the angel Michael of the Sun in its illustration as in figure 1. More than that, we know
that the lamen design is clearly based off of Agrippa’s Fourth Book, from which we know that we
need the following (book IV, chapter 10)79 :

. . . And in the center of the Lamen, let there be drawn a character of six corners (hexa-
gram); in the middle whereof, let there be written the name and character of the Star,
or of the Spirit his governor, to whom the good spirit that is to be called is subject.
And about this character, let there be placed so many characters of five corners (Pen-
tagram), as the spirits we would call together at once. And if we shall call only one
spirit, nevertheless there shall be made four Pentagram, wherein the name of the spirit
or spirits, with their characters, is to be written. Now this table ought to be composed
when the Moon in increasing, on those days and hours which then agree to the Spirit.
And if we take a fortunate star herewith, it will be the better. Which Table being made
in this manner, it is to be consecrated according to the rules above delivered. . .

This means we need to have as main design elements a single hexagram (six-pointed star con-
sisting of two triangles, one laid upside-down on top of the other), and at least four pentagrams
(five-pointed stars) arranged around the hexagram. The central hexagram is the big thing here, as
79 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10

85
it’s the main focus of the lame. Everyone I’ve ever seen uses the hexagram to specify the seal and
name of the spirit we’re calling upon in the ritual itself; if you want to conjure the angel Michael
of the Sun, then following the example of DSIC, you’d put the name “Michael” and his seal in the
central hexagon of the hexagram; if Gabriel of the moon, “Gabriel” with his seal, and so forth.
Pretty straightforward, no problems there.
What’s interesting, however, are the pentagrams around the hexagram. Agrippa clearly says
that these aren’t just for decoration, but explicitly for conjuring other spirits. What sorts of spirits?
Read the first part of the Agrippa quote above closely: “let there be written the name and character
of the Star, or of the Spirit his governor, to whom the good spirit that is to be called is subject” and
“let there be placed so many characters of five corners. . . .as the spirits we would call together at
once”. In other words, the lamen is designed to be sufficiently general that it can call upon any kind
of spirit (and I do mean any kind, admitting that all spirits have some sort of planetary affinity),
but in such a way that it reinforces spiritual hierarchies.
So, let’s say that we wanted to perform a conjuration specifically of Nakhiel, the intelligence
of the Sun. In this case, though the usual common modern approach would be to make a lamen
with the name and sigil of Nakhiel in the central hexagram, the proper Agrippan method of doing
so would be to place Nakhiel and its sigil in one of the pentagrams around the hexagram, keeping
Michael of the Sun’s name and character in the hexagram. Likewise, if we were to call upon
Taphthartharath, the spirit of Mercury, and if we wanted to call upon the intelligence of Mercury
Tiriel as well to keep Taphthartharath in line, then we’d make a lamen with the hexagram having
the name and seal of Raphael of Mercury inside it, with the name and sigil of Tiriel in one pentagram
and those of Taphthartharath in another pentagram.
Alternatively, note how Agrippa also says that the name and character “of the Star” can be placed
in the hexagram, not just “of the Spirit his governor”. This means that instead of constructing a
lamen such that the ruling angel of that planetary sphere gets put in the middle (symbolically giving
that spirit dominance over all other spirits around it), the planet itself would be put in the middle
and all the other spirits around it (symbolically recognizing that all those spirits belong to that
planet). Using this approach, if we wanted to make a lamen for Michael of the Sun, we’d put the
name “Sol” (or “Sun”, or “Shemesh” in Hebrew/Celestial script, etc.) with the characters of the Sun
(book I, chapter 33)80 or number square seal of the Sun (book II, chapter 22)81 in the center part
of the hexagram, then put the name and seal of Michael in one of the pentagrams around it. For
our Mercury example above, we’d put the name “Mercurius”, “Mercury”, “Kochab”, etc. with either
the characters or number square seal of Mercury in the hexagram, with the names and seals/sigils
for the spirits Raphael, Tiriel, and Taphthartharath in the pentagrams around it.
I actually like the approach of putting the planet in the middle of the hexagram, but it seems
that literally nobody does this: not Fr. RO, not Fr. AC, not Fr. Acher, nobody, not even Barrett
himself in the DSIC illustration. In fact, it doesn’t seem that anyone has ever taken this approach,
whether using the planet in the center and all other spirits around it or even using a ruling spirit
in the middle and subordinate spirits around it, and the reason is pretty apparent to me: writing
names and seals in those tiny pentagrams is hard. No size is given for the lamen in either Agrippa
or DSIC, but if we would need to make the lamen large enough to support both the writing of
the name and character of whatever we put in the central hexagram as well as in the pentagram
for the spirits, and that’s pretty large, even if we make the central hexagram the same size as the
pentagrams—which nobody does, and probably for the simple design reason of making whatever’s
80 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1b.htm#chap33
81 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22

86
in the center stand out visually both in arrangement and in size.
That being said, let’s go back to the DSIC-style lamen that focuses on Michael. The DSIC
illustration gives the name of the spirit twice, once in Hebrew above the hexagram and once in
Latin inside the hexagram. Why both? Agrippa doesn’t say to do this, and DSIC is silent on the
matter. Yet, it seems that everyone follows this method, and I’m not sure why. On this, since we’re
looking at Agrippa here anyway, let’s turn to Donald Tyson who, in his version of the Fourth Book
from Llewellyn, gives both the original text and a lengthy analysis of it, which is super useful here.
He also gives a bit of interpretation of what Agrippa says about the lamen, along with how Barrett
interpreted it for DSIC:
. . . In the center is drawn a “character of six corners”, which I take to mean a hexagram
rather than a hexagon. In the center of this is written the name and character of the
planet, or of the governing angel of the planet, to which the angel invoked is subject.
Around the hexagram are placed as many “characters of five corners” (probably penta-
grams rather than pentagons, even though Turner [the original English translator for
Agrippa] uses the word “pentagons” here) as there are good spirits to be invoked. If
it happens that only a single spirit is to be invoked, nonetheless four pentagrams are
used, and in them is written the name and character of that spirit. What is to be done
if two or three spirits are to be invoked is not made clear in the text. Perhaps four is
the minimum number of pentagrams to be used when the number of spirits is less than
four. . . .
In the example of a lamen made to these specifications that is provided by Francis
Barrett in his work, The Magus (plate immediately before bk. 2, pt. 4), here redrawn
for clarity, we see Barrett’s interpretation of these instructions, which is not without
defect. It is stated that the hexagram should be drawn in the middle of the lamen, but
Barrett’s engraver placed it below center. The name “Michael”, who is the governing
angel of the sun, is written within the hexagram in Latin letters, but also in Hebrew
letters above the hexagram. In my opinion this repetition of the name is unnecessary,
and it should not be written outside the hexagram. Also within the hexagram is the
character of Michael. Around the hexagram are six pentagrams, which are uninscribed
in this general example of the lamen, but which would represent six spirits under the
authority of the sun, and Michael, who are to be summoned. The names of these spirits
would be written in the pentagrams. Thirteen divine names are written around [the]
lamen within a double circle: El, Elohim, Elohe, Lebaoth [sic], Elion, Escherchie, Adoni,
Jah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton, Saday, Jod, Ehevi. . . .
I agree with Tyson on this matter, that the repetition of the name of the spirit to be conjured
as shown by the DSIC illustration is unnecessary. Perhaps it’s to specify what the spirit is we’re
actually focused on, in case we’re calling upon a subordinate spirit? It’s not clear, but I don’t think
that it’s needed. In that case, we could get rid of the outside-the-hexagram name entirely to save
some space to make the central hexagram and surrounding pentagrams larger, giving us more space
to write names and seals where needed. However, it would also seem that I and Tyson are in the
minority there; everyone else appears to use the name (written most often in Hebrew, sometimes
both Hebrew and Latin, and even in one instance where I’ve seen it written in Arabic) outside any
such star in the lamen.
But, going back to the pentagrams, Agrippa says that there should always be a minimum of
four. Why? It’s not stated in the Fourth Book, and as far as I can tell, it’s not in the Three

87
Books, either. There are two things that come to mind that might explain this, and the first is a
pretty simple one: four stars for the four directions, kings, or archangels. This effectively reinforces
the notion of four “pillars”, for lack of a better term, to further ground and align ourselves as the
magician in connecting with the spirit or spirits we’re conjuring, and given the stellar alignment
of the angels in general, I’m guessing that these would be the four archangels Michael, Gabriel,
Raphael, and Uriel as would be present on the pedestal/table/Table of Practice. . . but I don’t like
this explanation, as I’d expect such an alignment to be made more explicit if that were the case.
Rather, I think what’s going on is that the Fourth Book is designing lamens in a general enough
way to account for a minimum of four spirits per planet no matter what. Hear out my logic on this:

• In book II, chapter 1082 and chapter 1383 , Agrippa gives us a single angel for each of the
seven planets.
• In book II, chapter 2284 , Agrippa gives a bunch of divine names for each planet, including
subordinate spirits. The planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, and Mercury all have one intel-
ligence and one spirit each; Venus has an intelligence, spirit, and intelligences; and the Moon
has a spirit, a spirit of spirits, and an intelligence of intelligences.
• To account for all seven planets, there are either three or four total spirits: one angel, one
spirit, one intelligence OR intelligence of intelligences (for the Moon), and (only in the case
of the Moon) a spirit of spirits OR (only in the case of Venus) intelligences.

• This method then suggests that the name and character of the planet should be in the hexa-
gram, with all other spirits in the pentagrams.
• Thus, because there are a baseline of four entities for each planet (though most only have
three), there should be four stars at minimum, to account for all these different subordinate
spirits given in book II by Agrippa.

Now, I don’t fully buy that explanation, either, because what if we have, say, six solar spirits
that aren’t any of the above, even if we were to put the angel of the Sun in the central hexagram?
After all, there are plenty of texts that give a variety of spirits, messengers, intelligences, and other
types of spirits for the planets, in addition to one’s own familiar spirits that one might receive from
that sphere as well. I don’t know, but that’s the best explanation I can come up with for why
there must be four pentagrams from an Agrippan perspective, and it is a workable explanation, if
it weren’t for the fact that for most planets, only three pentagrams would suffice using this logic.
I can’t say for sure. There might be something I’m missing, or another textual influence that I’m
not picking up on here. (We’ll probably return to this point later on when we talk more about such
influences.)
And what about using more pentagrams? Just keep adding them on, I suppose; Agrippa just
says to have as many pentagrams as there are spirits to be conjured. That said, the fewer, the
better; I suppose we should stick to at least one but no more than six in a single conjuration. Heck,
as the Arbatel says (in aphorism VI.36)85 , “Care is to be taken, that experiments be not mixed with
experiments; but that every one be onely simple and several: for God and Nature have ordained
82 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap10
83 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap13
84 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22
85 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/arbatel.htm

88
all things to a certain and appointed end. . . therefore simplicity is chiefly to be studied, and the
knowledge of such simples is to be sought for from God”.
All the same, Agrippa is clear that there needs to be at least four pentagrams. Yet, even if
we put the angel we’re conjuring in the central hexagram, it doesn’t seem like we need to go with
the minimum number of pentagrams in general. After all, the DSIC illustration itself gives six
pentagrams around the hexagram, even though the caption gives the lamen only to Michael, and
Fr. AC, following the DSIC example, always gives six pentagrams to all of his lamens in GTSC.
Fr. RO, on the other hand, prefers to stick just to four, as shown by his RWC version and SS version
of the lamen for the angel of Jupiter as shown in figure 43.
Personally, I fall in line with DSIC and Fr. AC to always use six pentagrams around the lamen; it
just looks nicer. But, knowing what my lamens I already use look like, what would they look like if
we took some of our observations above into account? Let’s say we wanted to make a lamen for the
angel Michael alone, and another one for all the four main Agrippan spirits of Venus (angel Anael,
intelligence Hagiel, spirit Qedemel, intelligences B’nai Seraphim). What would we do? Here’s the
approach I’d probably take nowadays:

• Use the ten general divine names (or twelve, as I said last time), plus any others for the
specific planet of the spirits to be conjured
• Write the divine names in Latin script, starting from the top of the lamen (and not the left),
beginning with the general names and ending with the specific ones
• Use the planet’s name (in Latin) and character in the hexagram.
• Put the other spirits’ names and characters in the pentagrams.
• Use the standard Latin-script spelling of the angels from the Heptameron, corrected Agrippa
elsewhere (e.g. reading “Bne Seraphim” as “B’nai Seraphim”).
• Only write the name of each spirit once in its proper star, i.e. no big name outside any of the
stars inside the ring of divine names.
• Always use six pentagrams, even if fewer spirits are being conjured.
• Try to place and balance out the names in the pentagrams however necessary according to
the number of spirits.

That would get us two lamens like in figure 44. Of course, if we wanted to use the common
approach of putting the presiding angel in the hexagram instead of the planet, we’d get the ones
given in figure 45. While I like the change in the divine names to make use of the more planetary-
specific ones, I think we can see why the pentagrams are so underutilized for spirit names and
characters: they’re so damn small that it really is a pain to have names in them without making
the central hexagram as small, too. This is a bother, but it is following specifications according to
Agrippa. But why have pentagrams at all in this use? Consider what Agrippa says in book IV,
chapter 1286 when dealing with stubborn or lying spirits: “if you doubt of any lye, make without
the Circle with the consecrated Sword, the figure of a triangle or Pentagram, and compel the Spirit
to enter into it”. We’ll get into the topic of magic circles later, but note the similarity here of what’s
going on: we’re putting a spirit into a structure of binding and obedience. But, if we’re not putting
86 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12

89
 (a) RWC version.

(b) SS version.

Figure 43: Two forms of Fr. RO’s lamens for the angel Tzadqiel/Sachiel of Jupiter.

90
 (a) Of the Sun.

(b) Of Venus.

Figure 44: Example lamens using the planetary seal in the center hexagram.

91
 (a) Of the Sun.

(b) Of Venus.

Figure 45: Example lamens using the presiding angel of the planet in the center hexagram.

92
anything into them, then an argument could be made that we shouldn’t have them at all in the
design. I wouldn’t know how to answer that point, because I simply don’t know what purpose the
pentagrams themselves fill on the lamen if they’re not used for containing spirits, but they are used
all the same.
However, DSIC does say nothing about using the pentagrams on the lamen in this way, so
perhaps the author of DSIC meant (for this very same reason) to just use just one spirit for the
lamen, and that placed in a central large hexagram so as to avoid difficulty when writing the names.
For that, I think a third version might be best, which is just the second set of lamens above without
any secondary spirit and the central hexagram much larger than the rest, as in figure 46. You’ll
also note that all of the pentagrams are pointing upward in these lamens. While I can think of good
meaningful reasons to do so, it feels a little weird to me only because there’s a graphical imbalance
and improper use of whitespace. I would personally be inclined to rotate each pentagram so that it
points outward from the central hexagram (as I showed in my second set of “custom” lamens from
before), as in figure 47, but that’s just a minor stylistic choice on my part. Looking at the older
grimoires, like the Key of Solomon and Lemegeton or Heptameron, it seems like it’s about 50/50
whether surrounding pentagrams are rotated or not. You could take it or leave it, I suppose; it’s a
really minor difference, but I think it looks a bit nicer.
And, just to clarify something I mentioned in passing in the last post: what if the spirit we’re
conjuring isn’t a planetary one? What if we’re not conjuring an angel, intelligence, spirit, messenger,
familiar, etc. of a planet, but some other sort of spirit entirely, like a spirit of the land, a demon,
or some other type of spirit? What would we do for all the planetary stuff? Well, in short, there
is nothing that is not planetary in some way; Agrippa is clear on this point that all things that
exist underneath in or underneath the realms of the seven planets have an affinity with a planet.
Every possible spirit can be given some sort of planetary nature; indeed, in book IV, chapter 1287
(“Calling forth evil spirits to a magic circle”), if we want to call upon an “evil” (demonic, goetic,
whatever) spirit:

. . . it first behooves us to consider, and to know his nature, to which of the Planets it
agrees, and what Offices are distributed to him from that Planet; which being known,
let there be sought out a place fit and proper for his invocation, according to the nature
of the Planet, and the quality of the Offices of the said Spirit, as near as the same may
be done. . . let there be chosen a convenient time, both for the quality of the Air, serene,
clear, quiet, and fitting for the Spirits to assume bodies; as also of the quality and nature
of the Planet, and of the Spirit, as to wit, on his day, or the time wherein he rules: he
may be fortunate or infortunate, sometimes of the day, and sometimes of the night, as
the Stars and Spirits do require. . . .

In that sense, the same lamen format as given above can be used for any spirit. For instance,
if we wanted to use the DSIC method for a spirit from the Lemegeton Goetia 88 , eschewing that
specific conjuration method in favor of the DSIC one, we know from the Lemegeton that “the seals
of those 72 kings are to be made in Metals, the chiefest King[s] in gold, Marquises in silver, Dukes
in copper, Prelates in tin, Knights in mercury/pewter, and Earls in [a mix of] copper and silver
equally alike”. Note that these are the metals given to the planets, and were written originally using
the planetary glyphs to stand in for the terms for the metals. Admitting that the seals of Earls
should probably be made in iron, if it weren’t for iron’s property of destroying spirits, then we’d
87 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12
88 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/goetia.htm

93
 (a) Of the Sun.

(b) Of Venus.

Figure 46: Example lamens using only the presiding angel of the planet in the center hexagram.

94
 (a) Of the Sun.

(b) Of Venus.

Figure 47: Example lamens using only the presiding angel of the planet in the center hexagram,
rotating the pentagrams for aesthetic purposes.

95
have planetary affinities for each of the 72 demons of the Lemegeton Goetia. So, if we were to make
a DSIC-style lamen for, say, Dantalion, we know that he’s a duke, and thus given to the planet of
Venus, so we’d put the name and seal of Anael the angel of Venus in the central hexagram and the
name and seal of Dantalion in a pentagram around the hexagram.
Just another small note after all that: I made a point to say that, when describing my lamens
above, that I would “write the divine names in Latin script, starting from the top of the lamen
(and not the left), beginning with the general names and ending with the specific ones”. The DSIC
lamen starts the divine names at the leftmost point of the lamen and goes clockwise from there. I
find this odd and can’t figure out the reasoning for it; both I and Fr. AC start at the top and go
clockwise, but Fr. RO sticks closer to the DSIC illustration and starts at the left, as well, so he’s
being more faithful to the DSIC text here. The only thing I can think of is—maybe—when wearing
the lamen, assuming the lamen should be facing away from the magician towards the crystal (and
I see no reason why that wouldn’t be the case), the name “El” would be present closest to the right
hand, the hand which DSIC says is to both wear the ring and use the wand. We’ll touch on those
two items later, but that’s the only thing I can think of to explain the positioning of the starting
point of divine names on the lamen in the DSIC illustration, and it’s not a very good explanation
at that. Still, something to point out.
And one last note! While we’re touching a bit on materials here, I want to save the materials
for the lamen (and all the other tools and supplies, bits and bobs of DSIC) for a later post, there
is something else to mention here as well: what shape should the lamen be? We know the design
of it as given in this post and the previous one, but we know that we need to make this lamen to
wear from the neck on the chest for the conjuration. Knowing that the design should be in a double
circle as shown above, what shape should the item as a whole be? Agrippa says that the “outward
form or figure thereof may be square, circular, or triangular, or of the like sort, according to the
rule of the numbers” (book IV, chapter 10)89 . This suggests that we should be using a polygon of
a number of sides equal to the “rule of the numbers”, as suggested by Agrippa in book II, chapter
2290 , i.e. three for Saturn, four for Jupiter, and so forth. That means:

Saturn triangle
Jupiter square

Mars pentagon
Sun hexagon (though Fr. AC in GTSC gives a lovely sunburst pattern for one example of this with
24 rays, and 24 = 4 × 6)
Venus heptagon

Mercury octagon
Moon nonagon (which Fr. AC in GTSC gives a beautiful scalloped form for each of the sides, each
side curving inwards slightly)

However, in general, a circle will suffice for them all, as all polygons are approximations of the
circle anyway, which is properly has no number of sides at all (except, perhaps, infinite). However,
89 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10
90 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22

96
if you have the means for it, go with shaping the lamen in a shape appropriate to the planet being
conjured, as it will increase the planetary attunement and resonance you’re going for to begin with
for the lamen.
To make the lamen wearable, there are three major approaches I can think of:

1. The first is simply to poke or bore a small hole at the top of the lamen itself and thread it
with a ribbon, string, cord, thong, or some other kind of strap to make a large pendant out
of it, wearing the lamen directly on the chest. This is easiest no matter what material you
make the lamen out of. The strap can be colored appropriately to the planet of the spirit.

2. The second approach is to construct the lamen so that it has a hook or loop at the top of
some sort; think of those pre-made, pre-cast pewter pendants you’d get. This is best if you
can make the lamen out of some sort of durable material like metal; it keeps the body of the
lamen unpoked and unholed, while giving it a more professional, finer look.

3. The third approach, which I personally prefer, is to make the lamen as a sort of insert into a
frame. This keeps the lamen whole and without having to poke holes in it. For this purpose, I
got a small circular wooden picture frame and put a hook in the top of it with a cord passing
through it. This way, I get to keep my lamens whole and unpierced while still making them
able to wear around the neck. However, this only really works with thin lamens made out of
paper or thin metal. An example of this is given in figure 48.

2.5 The Wand

Okay, so now we’ve reviewed some of the biggest things we know we need: the crystal, the pedestal
and the table (or, if you combine them, the Table of Practice) and the lamen. If only those were
the only things we needed to discuss, but alas! There are still even more things! While we won’t
get into all of them today, we can knock out a few of them in a single post, because there’s not that
much to say about them—whether because they’re so straightforward or because whether there’s
just not much written about them.
First, let’s talk about the wand. We know we need a wand, because DSIC says so:
. . . take your black ebony wand, with the gilt characters on it and trace the circle. . .
And that’s the only instance in the ritual text of DSIC for using the wand. There’s no description
given in the text, but the illustration that accompanies DSIC gives us just such a design (see
figure 1). The wand is the large stick on the left, a long thin cylindrical rod with the divine names
“Agla On Tetragrammaton”, with a hexagram between “Agla” and “On”, a hexagram with a central
Yod in it (like as depicted on the pedestal as well as described for the gold disc for the pedestal)
between “On” and “Tetragrammaton”, and another cross after “Tetragrammaton”. This depiction is
also accompanied by the caption:

The Magic Wand to be used in Invocations by the Chrystal. Write or engrave on the
other side “Ego Alpha et Omega”.

So we know that there needs to be two sets of writings on the wand, which (as stated by the
text) should be made of ebony with “gilt characters”, meaning that we need to use gold for all the
inscriptions; you can just use gold ink or gold paint, or if you want to go the extra mile, engrave
the ebony shaft and use actual gold leaf to gild it.

97
Figure 48: A wooden lamen holder, with an older lamen of the angel Michael of the Sun.

98
 Figure 49: Ebony wands made by Fr. AC.

That’s basically it. Fr AC, as usual91 , sticks to the design of this pretty exactly: a simple,
straight, unembellished ebony rod with the characters applied in gold paint. Nothing really that
special to note, though I will note that the design of the wand he gives in GTSC omits the central
Yod in the second hexagram, even if he includes it on the wands he makes (see figure 49) and
includes the mark in a separate diagram just before the completed wand design image. A graphical
oversight, I assume; the wand clearly should have the Yod mark (or, as Fr. AC claims, the Daleth
mark) in the middle hexagram, as he makes on his actual wands.
However, instead of writing the phrase “Ego Alpha et Omega” in Latin as DSIC indicates, Fr. AC
writes “Εγο το Αλφα και το Ω”, since he “decided to use the phrase and alphabet used in the Greek
language for ‘I am the Alpha and Omega,’ as it seemed to be appropriate and stayed within the
original context”. Though he says that “end result turned out quite well”, there’s an unfortunate
error in his design; as with the linguistic errors he made on on his version of the table, there’s a
91 https://ashenchassan.com/2014/10/13/magical-services/

99
typo in the Greek here, too. This phrase is taken from Revelations 22:1392 , which in Greek starts
“Εγω το Αλφα και το Ω” (“᾿Εγὼ τὸ ῎Αλφα καὶ τὸ ῏Ω” using polytonic Greek), using an ōmega instead
of omikron for the first word. Despite the minor though unfortunate typo (especially using such
expensive materials as gold and ebony), I don’t disagree with using the original Greek phrase here,
though some might find it weird to mix Greek script on one side and Latin script on the other.
Anyway, back to the wand design. Fr. RO basically takes this same design and approach, but
in RWC, he omits the reverse side of the wand; he doesn’t include “Ego Alpha et Omega” on the
wand, just the three divine names with the three symbols. He fixes this approach in SS, where he
gives the three divine names with the three symbols on one side, and the phrase “Ego Sum Alpha et
Omega” on the back; basically the same thing, with the word “sum” (“I am”) elided in the original
statement. Fr. RO also makes a note in SS: “Note that you don’t have to use a wand; you can also
use your index finger, the finger of Jupiter”. And that’s actually a really interesting point to make,
because it taps into some of the symbolism of the wand: depending on your approach, it can be
seen as a conductor’s baton, the caduceus of Hermēs/Mercurius, a drumstick to beat the sacred
drum of the shaman, or a king’s scepter. Fr. RO typically has a very Jovian-minded approach to
his style of Hermetic magic that focuses much on kingship and royalty, but I don’t disagree with it:
the wand is our symbol of divinely-entrusted Power.
For myself? I originally used a simple version (see figure 50), made of no more than a carved
pine dowel I got from Michael’s with just the front half of the inscriptions (since I was working from
RWC at the time), which I then carved at the tip and stained and finished off with polyurethane, but
I eventually made myself something much nicer from ebony, gold, silver, and quartz (see figure 51.
I described my approach to my wand on the craft page I made for it93 , documenting how I made it
and my own design. It’s not a close fit with DSIC, but it is based on it; I incorporated the symbols
for the wand from the Key of Solomon, rewrote the divine names in Hebrew (‫ יהוה‬,‫ ון‬,‫)אגלא‬, and
replaced “Ego Alpha et Omega” with the word AZOTH94 . No, it’s not by-the-book DSIC, but it
fulfills all the same requirements and needs, and throws in a bit of traditional Solomonica as well.
(And, depending on your line of thinking, the symbols from the Key of Solomon can sometimes be
read as highly distorted, devolved, and degraded Hebrew script for many of the same things we’d
engrave anyway.)
However, looking at the three symbols on the wand, something does cross my mind. We know
that the illustrator for DSIC loves hexagrams: they’re present on the lamen (which, to be fair, is
according to Agrippa’s specifications), they’re present in the magic circle (which we’ll get to in a
later post), they’re present on the gold disc for the pedestal, and they’re present on the pedestal
stand itself. And now we see them on the wand, as well, but. . . I think it’s important to pick up on
the fact that there are three separate symbols here on the wand, and the only time we see another
set of three symbols is on the front side of the gold plate for the pedestal that has the pentagram,
hexagram with central Yod, and cross with the name Tetragrammaton. It occurs to me that the
first symbol on the wand, the hexagram between “Agla” and “On”, might have been intended to be
a pentagram and not a hexagram to match with the same symbols on the gold disc that supports
the crystal, and that it’s a hexagram could have been a mistake on the part of the illustrator for
DSIC.
It’s not clear, and Agrippa’s Fourth Book doesn’t describe the use of a wand at all, and this is
the only instance of a wand described or used in the entirety of The Magus, as well. It’s not clear
92 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
93 https://digitalambler.com/materia/wand-of-art/
94 https://digitalambler.com/2013/07/18/notes-on-the-word-azoth/

100
Figure 50: An old wand made according to Fr. RO’s instructions in RWC.

101
 (a) Design.

(c) Implementation.

Figure 51: A custom wand made for the author’s own use.

102
where DSIC incorporated the wand from, and I’m not sure. The closest thing I can think of, if
not texts like the Key of Solomon itself, is a small description from the Liber Juratus Honorii, the
Sworn Book of Honorius 95 (LHJ):

But the wand should have four sides. On one side should be written “Adonay”; on the
second side “Sabaoth”; on the third, “Hiskiros”; on the fourth “Emanuel”. On the middle
of the wand make the pentagonal figure of Solomon, and where the wand is held, a cross,
and thus it will be prepared for sacred and wonderful works.

If you think about it, this is kinda sorta like what DSIC has, if you squint a bit and cross
your eyes. But I do think that it’s significant to note the two symbols on the wand that LJH
does describe: a pentagram “on the middle of the wand” and a cross “where the wand is held”. If
you reckon “where the wand is held” to be the bottom end of the wand according to the DSIC
illustration, then we get a match with where the cross is placed on the DSIC wand. The middle
symbol of the DSIC wand is the hexagram with central Yod in it, but if you swap that with the
blank hexagram and reinterpret the “figure of Solomon” to be a pentagram instead of a hexagram,
then you’d end up with a modified form of the DSIC wand with a hexagram with central Yod in
it, a pentagram, and a cross—the same set of symbols in the same order that DSIC gives for the
gold plate inscription.

I dunno. I think there’s a semi-convincing argument to be made there, but it’s inconclusive
either way. Looking at the Key of Solomon isn’t really helpful, as the wand described in that
doesn’t match with any of this above, though Joseph H. Peterson of Esoteric Archives96 has the
note for this section on his entry for the Key of Solomon 97 :

The staff and wand seem to be interchangeable in book 2 chapter 798 . See footnote
4. I believe these characters are nothing more than corrupted versions of the Hebrew
characters “AGLA + VN + IHVH” found in Trithemius99 . Scot’s magical texts100 have
“Tetragrammaton + Adonay + Agla + Craton” on the wand. The staff and wand are
conspicuously absent from the list of instruments in the Hebrew Key of Solomon 101 as
well as Ad. 36674102 .

How long should the wand be? No description is given anywhere. My default preference is the
length from your elbow to the tip of your middle finger, fully extended in a straight line. I find that
to be a comfortable length, but it’s up to you. Joseph H. Peterson has an article up on grimoiric
95 http://www.esotericarchives.com/juratus/juratus.htm
96 http://www.esotericarchives.com/
97 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap8
98 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap7
99 http://www.esotericarchives.com/tritheim/trchryst.htm
100 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/scot16.htm#chap8
101 http://www.esotericarchives.com/gollancz/ms.htm
102 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ad36674.htm#b2chap8

103
wand lore over at Esoteric Archives103 , but even then, there’s not much. Thesaurus Spirituum says
one cubit (about 18”), Le Grand Grimoire says 19.5”, and some versions of the Key of Solomon
say 24”. So, pick something in the 20”-ish range and you’ll be good; it just so happens that the
average person’s elbow-to-middle-fingertip distance happens to be in that same range, depending
on your body’s proportions, so that might be the best standard to measure by, especially if you’re
exceptionally tall or exceptionally short. That said, I’ve seen some people use much shorter wands
than this, sometimes even shorter than 12”, so there’s certainly room for variance. As for thickness,
perhaps as thick as your index finger at the knuckle, something with substance but nothing too
unwieldy.
Now, all that being said, this assumes that the wand is held by the end with the cross symbol
on it, such that the DSIC image shows the wand “pointed up”. However, looking back through
the old mailing list archives of Fr. RO’s RWC Yahoo! Groups, I find (almost seven years after the
fact) that Fr. RO uses the wand with the cross-symbol end being the “point”; this is the original
interpretation I used, as shown by my first wand. In other words, the base of the wand starts at the
start of the text “Agla. . . ” and finishes with “. . . Tetragrammaton z” at the “point”; when I went
to Hebrew script for my ebony wand, I kept Agla close to the base and the Tetragrammaton closer
to the tip. So, really, the DSIC illustration would seem to most conventionally be interpreted to
have the wand shown “pointed down”; I think this makes the most sense, since we hold the wand
where the text starts, and as the of the divine names text “continues” our reach, it shows the flow
of both semantic meaning as well as power from our hands. Others, however, found that it doesn’t
matter for them, since the wand as shown has no actual “point” to it, so it may be used either way
as a general rod of power. Fr. AC doesn’t say which way the wand should be held, though the old
promo video for GTSC at the 4:31 mark104 shows Fr. AC holding the wand in a similar way, with
“Agla. . . ” closer to the base and “. . . Tetragrammaton z” at the point. Based on all this, we should
hold the wand from the “Agla. . . ” side, regardless whether we write the names in Latin script or
in Hebrew script.
So much for the wand, but I do want to make one more note here: though Agrippa in his Fourth
Book doesn’t really describe the use of a wand, he does describe the use of a sword for use in
conjurations, mostly when performing conjurations of evil spirits (book IV, chapter 12)105 :

And after all the courses are finished, then cease a little; and if any Spirit shall appear, let
the Invocant turn himself towards the Spirit, and courteously receive him, and earnestly
entreating him, let him first require his name, and if he be called by any other name;
and then proceeding further, let him ask him whatsoever he will: and if in any thing the
Spirit shall shew himself obstinate or lying, let him be bound by convenient conjurations:
and if you doubt of any lie, make without the Circle with the consecrated Sword, the
figure of a triangle or Pentagram, and compel the Spirit to enter into it; and if thou
receive any promise which thou would have to be confirmed with an Oath, let him
stretch the sword out of the Circle, and swear the Spirit, by laying his hand upon the
Sword.

What Agrippa is describing here falls much more in line with classic Solomonic literature of using
a sword to impel and threaten spirits, in this case using a consecrated sword to draw a triangle
or pentagram into which the spirit is forced to enter so as to compel it to speak truth, making it
103 http://www.esotericarchives.com/wands/index.html
104 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmkmt9rX73U?t=271
105 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12

104
swear oaths of loyalty and truth upon the sword. As an implement of iron, the classic material for
the bane of spirits generally and evil spirits especially, this makes sense, and recalls similar uses
for daggers and other blades in texts such as the Key of Solomon. However, DSIC doesn’t mention
their use at all, suggesting a different origin or lineage of conjuration than the Key of Solomon or
Lemegeton Goetia. Still, it can make sense to think of the wand the wand as a replacement for the
Solomonic sword, especially given their similar uses in Agrippa and elsewhere. This, however, runs
counter to what Fr. AC says about the wand in GTSC:

The wand is meant to be a representation of divine authority and command. As such,

it should be treated with the upmost [sic] respect and dignity at all times. This is
not and was never meant to be only a “director of the magician’s will.” This is also
not a “blasting rod” in which to threaten and subdue spirits with either. It is wielded
as an active symbol of holy diplomacy and ambassadorship. When you invoke holy
Archangels with this wand, you are doing so with the assumption of divine inspiration
and permission.

Now. . . do we really need a wand? Personally, in light of the absence of any other Solomonic-type
tool of conjuration, I would say that we should. But, if not, as Fr. RO suggests, using the forefinger,
the “finger of Jupiter”, can work in some cases. It won’t work for the proper Solomonic purpose of
threatening impelling spirits (Mars, properly speaking, doesn’t have a finger associated to it, but
the middle finger, given to Saturn, might work instead). Will a non-DSIC wand work? I think so,
yes. It’d be best to make it according to spec here, but I don’t think that it’s that important in
the long run; a wand with some sort of holy names, or imbued with holiness somehow, is sufficient.
However, an argument can be made that, if all you’re using DSIC for is “good spirits”, then you
probably wouldn’t need a wand at all; after all, Agrippa doesn’t mention the use of any such tool or
implement in either of his conjuration methods for “good spirits” (either his prayer-based theurgic
method or his ecstatic trance method), and even in his conjuration of “evil spirits”, he only uses a
sword in certain circumstances. If it weren’t for the single DSIC instruction of tracing the circle
out with the wand (which is such a waste of an exquisite and exotic tool, made of ebony and gold
as it is!), I would personally say that you wouldn’t need the wand unless you really wanted one.
It’s not like you can exactly boss angels around, nor can you impress them as being an emissary of
the power of God when that’s exactly their own role.

2.6 The Ring

What about the ring? We can assume that this is basically a Ring of Solomon, but as far as DSIC is
concerned, what exactly should we be looking for or aiming at? Like the wand, DSIC only mentions
it once:

Then taking your ring and pentacle, put the ring on the little finger of your right hand. . .

But, unlike the wand, DSIC doesn’t give a description of what the ring should look like.
Agrippa’s Fourth Book isn’t of much help here, either; there are only a handful of instances of
the word. Here are the relevant passages, with the important parts in bold text:

It is to be known also, that Vows, Oblations, and Sacrifice, have the power of consecra-
tion, as much real as personal; and they are as it were certain covenants and conventions

105
 between those names with which they are made, and us who make them, strongly cleav-
ing to our desire and wished effect: As, when we dedicate, offer, and sacrifice, with
certain names or things; as, Fumigations, Unctions, Rings, Images, Looking-glasses;
and things less material, as Deities, Sigils, Pentacles, Enchantments, Orations, Pic-
tures, and Scriptures: of which we have largely spoken in our third book of Occult
Philosophy. (book IV, chapter 8)106

But he that is willing always and readily to receive the Oracles of a Dream,
let him make unto himself a Ring of the Sun or of Saturn for this purpose.
There is also an Image to be made, of excellent efficacy and power to work this effect;
which being put under his head when he goes to sleep, doth effectually give true dreams
of anything whatsoever the mine has before determined or consulted on. The Tables
of Numbers do likewise confer to receive an Oracle, being duly formed under their own
Constellations. And these things you may know in the third book of Occult Philosophy.
. . . Now he that knows how to compose those things which we have now spoken of, he
shall receive the most true Oracles of dreams. And this he shall do; observe those things
which in the second book of Occult Philosophy are directed concerning this thing. He
that is desirous therefore to receive an Oracle, let him abstain from supper and from
drink, and be otherwise well disposed, his brain being free from turbulent vapors; let him
also have his bed-chamber fair and clean, exorcised and consecrated if he will; then let
him perfume the same with some convenient fumigation; and let him anoint
his temples with some unguent efficacious hereunto, and put a ring upon his
finger, of the things above spoken of : let him take either some image, or holy table,
or holy paper, and place the same under his head: then having made a devout prayer,
let him go unto his bed, and meditating upon that thing which he desires to know, let
him so sleep; for so shall he receive a most certain and undoubted oracle by a dream,
when the Moon goes through that sign which was in the ninth House of his nativity,
and also when she goes through the sign of the ninth House of the Revolution of his
nativity; and when she is in the ninth sign from the sign of perfection. And this is the
way and means whereby we may obtain all Sciences and Arts whatsoever, suddenly and
perfectly, with a true Illumination of our understanding; although all inferior familiar
Spirits whatsoever do conduce to this effect; and sometimes also evil Spirits sensibly
informing us Intrinsically or Extrinsically. (book IV, chapter 11)107

But when we do intend to execute any effect by evil Spirits, when an Apparition is not
needful; then that is to be done, by making and forming that thing which is to be unto
us as an instrument, or subject of the experiment it self; as, whether it be an Image,
or a Ring, or a Writing, or any Character, Candle, or Sacrifice, or any thing of the like
sort; then the name of the Spirit is to be written therein, with his Character, according
to the exigency of the experiment, either by writing it with some blood, or otherwise
using a perfume agreeable to the Spirit. Oftentimes also making Prayers and Orations
to God and the good Angels before we invoce the evil Spirit, conjuring him by the divine
power. (book IV, chapter 14)108
106 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap8
107 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap11
108 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap14

106
 None of these really seem to apply to DSIC. The first passage kinda touches on the consecration
of various things, but it’s nothing specific to conjuration, just of consecrated items in general. The
second passage deals with oracles and divination through dreams, and though it specifies a ring to
be made for the Sun or Saturn, there’s nothing specific about that. The third passage talks about
dealing with evil spirits, but more in the case of working with them in a non-conjuration framework,
such as through talismanic works. So Agrippa doesn’t seem to help us at all for matters about the
ring. There’s exceedingly little in The Magus about it, too, and nothing specific for conjuration;
there’s nothing in LHJ or other texts like the Heptameron, either, about rings.
My only guess is that the ring is an import from Solomonic literature like the Lemegeton Goetia
(LG). From that, we get the following design in figure 52, the first from Esoteric Archive’s version109 ,
the second from Mathers’ later redrawing. The older version on Esoteric Archives gives a short
description:

This Ring is to be held before the face of the Exorcist to preserve him from The stinking
fumes of spirits &c.

Mathers gives a more fuller explanation for the ring that I like:

THIS is the Form of the Magic Ring, or rather Disc, of Solomon, the figure whereof is
to be made in gold or silver. It is to be held before the face of the exorcist to preserve
him from the stinking sulphurous fumes and flaming breath of the Evil Spirits.

I bring up both designs here to point out something interesting: both rings have the three
names “Tetragrammaton”, “Anaphexeton”/”Anaphaxeton”, and “Michael” on them, though Mathers
describes this more as a disc, while the older version seems a little. . . funkier. I think what the older
version is showing is that “Anaphexeton” and “Michael” should be on the outside of the ring, and
“Tetragrammaton” on the inside. (As for the word “Anaphaxeton”, Enoch Bowen of The Occult
and Magick blog110 put up a post some years ago about this word111 , and how he describes it as
related to the more common divine name “Tzabaoth”, related to the heavenly hosts, and this would
make sense with the inclusion of the name “Michael”, being their prince and commander.) This
design makes more sense than Mather’s design as a disc, but I suppose either would work.
As for the purpose of this ring? LG mentions the use of a ring when interacting with certain
spirits (using Mathers’ much more readable version for these quotes):

Beleth “And thou must have always a Silver Ring on the middle finger of the left hand held against
thy face, as they do yet before Amaymon. “
Berith “Thou must make use of a Ring in calling him forth, as is before spoken of regarding
Beleth.”

Astaroth “Thou must in no wise let him approach too near unto thee, lest he do thee damage by
his Noisome Breath. Wherefore the Magician must hold the Magical Ring near his face, and
that will defend him.”
109 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/goetia.htm
110 http://theoccultandmagick.blogspot.com/
111 http://theoccultandmagick.blogspot.com/2011/06/reconstructing-solomons-triangle.html

107
 (a) Esoteric Archive’s version.

(b) Mathers’ version.

Figure 52: Designs for the ring.

108
 The one big difference in use between the ring of LG and the ring of DSIC, namely which finger
and hand to wear it on (DSIC says the pinky/little finger of the right hand, LG the middle finger
of left hand), but I think the basic idea here is clear: it’s for the protection of the magician from
poison. Silver, after all, is well-known and has long been acclaimed to detect poisons by turning
black, and is seen also as a way of nullifying poisons, hence why LG says to wear it before the
face in order to preserve the magician from damage from the “noisome breath” (i.e. toxic, noxious,
poisonous, deadly, or otherwise unpleasant fumes, smoke, gas, breath, or similar emission from the
presence of the spirit). This would seem, however, to contradict Mathers’ description that the ring
could be made of gold when silver is clearly being relied upon here.
Now, Fr. RO doesn’t describe the use of a ring in his RWC or SS, but he does use a lead (!)
ring (which he says works as well as gold or silver) based on Mather’s version in the form of a disc.
Moreover, he says that he uses this and other similar tools (the pentagram and hexagram seals of
Solomon, basically other protective lamens from Solomonic literature) when conjuring one of the
spirits for the first time, though he also says that he has “never had a spirit manifest in a stinking
toxic cloud”.
In GTSC, Fr. AC does bring up the ring, but he makes the same conclusions I do: there’s
nothing in DSIC to guide us except that we need to wear one on the little finger of our right hand.
However, Fr. AC does bring up something to my attention I missed: The Magus does, in fact, give
an illustration of a magic ring, just not where we expected! On page 106 (part II, chapter 18),
there’s an illustration (see figure 53) of a number of things: a few pentagrams and other geometric
diagrams, an illustration of a sword, and, indeed, a magic ring! (I blame bad digitizations from
Google Books on why I didn’t spot this earlier.)
The ring given in this image is pretty simple: a simple band, with a bevel/jewel that has upon
it a hexagram with a single dot (perhaps a precursor to the hexagram with central Yod we see
elsewhere?). This is a very, very simple form of the “seal of Solomon”, but it works for our needs,
to be sure. Fr. AC describes his implementation, where he found just such a ring, and goes more
into the materials and uses for it, though he also takes the approach of the old-style LG and
engraves “Michael” and “Anaphexiton [sic]” on the outside and “Tetragrammaton” on the inside.
This is basically my own approach, too, as I showed when I had my own ring of Solomon made
for me some years back112 . My ring, seen in figure 54, uses Hebrew instead of Latin, and replaces
“Anaphaxeton” (or however you want to spell it) with “Tzabaoth” in Hebrew; there’s a hexagram
with central dot engraved on the band underneath the sunstone.
To quote a bit of Fr. AC on the purpose of the ring:

The magical ring is a shield of protection and banner of obedience to all spiritual forces.
The ring is a perfect symbol of divine unity and the impenetrable armor of God. To
the spirit, there is no transgressing past this unified symbol of divine completeness. It
is recommended that the ring you use be brand new and used only for this operation.

Also, one more note about that picture from The Magus: the sword in that image bears striking
resemblance to the wand from DSIC, even though this is from Barrett’s version of the Heptameron.
Barrett describes this specifically on page 110:

. . . and let the operator himself carry the sword, over which should be said a prayer of
consecration: and on the middle of the sword on one side let there be engraven Agla †,
and on the other side, † On † Tetragrammaton †.
112 https://digitalambler.com/2012/05/21/ring-of-solomon-2/

109
Figure 53: Barrett’s schema for his version of the Heptameron.

110
Figure 54: The author’s own Ring of Solomon.

111
 Fr. AC mistakenly interprets this to be a wand and not a sword, despite the text clearly saying
that it’s a sword as well as the caption saying so as well. Knowing that this is a sword and not a
wand, we can pick up how closely Barrett (and the author of DSIC, if separate people) may have
considered the DSIC wand to be to the sword here; in my mind, this weakens Fr. AC’s view that
the wand is not a “blasting rod”, since it can and should be used as one should the need arise. After
all, many of the tools in magical practice are not necessarily used for one thing and one thing only,
nor do they act as symbols that mean one thing and one thing only. While that might be the case if
you’re working from the Key of Solomon that has over a dozen separate implements, DSIC has so
far fewer, and as we can see, the wand in DSIC is a distillation of both the Solomonic wand as well
as the Solomonic sword, and thus can be used for either of the two in practice and in symbolism.

2.7 The Candles

The DSIC illustration shows “two Holy wax Lights used in the Invocation by the Chrystal”. A
little later on in the DSIC entry of The Magus, there’s a secondary caption later on that says a bit
more: “two silver or other candlesticks with the wax tapers burning”. So we know we need two wax
candles supported by silver candle holders, presumably with one placed on each side of the crystal,
one to the left and one to the right. There’s no mention of them, however, in the ritual text itself,
neither of when to light them nor how to make them holy or consecrated.
Fr. RO doesn’t mention using two holy candles supported by silver candle holders in RWC, or
even just a candle in general, but in SS, he says to use a lamp or tall candle, put behind and off to
the side towards the left of the Table of Practice and crystal. He describes this as:

This can either be a consecrated ritual Lamp that you use to represent the First Father
in all your rites, or a candle stick that you use for the same purpose. It can also be any
tall candle. I use white to represent the purity of the Source, but the First Father exists
before any colors.

He additionally gives a short prayer to say when lighting this candle; suffice to say that it’s part
of his own original methodology based on Hermetic devotions to God and not part of DSIC.
As for Fr. AC, he says in GTSC that he puts the two candles on either side of the table and
pedestal, and that he uses two silver-plated candlesticks fit with tall beeswax taper candles, lit at
the beginning of the ceremony. He suggests that one might use colored candles depending on the
planet (e.g. black for Saturn, green for Venus, etc.), and that they should be new and unused for
the ritual (or, at least, I presume, not used for any other purpose besides angelic conjuration). He
also notes that, “although it is not necessary to do so”, one may also anoint the candles with an
appropriate planetary/angelic oil, fluid condenser, or the like, as he’s experimented with and gotten
good results from. However, he doesn’t describe any formal consecration method for the candles,
which I find kinda uncharacteristic of him in this case; perhaps I just didn’t come across it when
going through GTSC. At the end of GTSC, he also suggests and recommends the use of an altar
candle lighter and snuffer, such as those used in formal church settings, so as to better reach them
better and offer a bit more formality to the ritual.
For myself? When I perform altar-based rituals, I use either one single candle (placed in the
middle towards the end of the altar) or two (placed on either corner opposite me), supported
by either wrought iron candle holders or silver ones, depending on the kind of work I’m doing;
fundamentally, I don’t think the material of the candle holders themselves matters much, but
that’s just me. I typically use plain white paraffin-wax candles that, at minimum, I asperge with

112
holy water before lighting, if not undertake a full consecration of them. Since DSIC doesn’t offer
much in the way of this, I developed my own form of candle consecration (and holy water, and this
and that)113 , based on various rites from the Key of Solomon; I recommend checking out that page
for some of the things I do. It’s simple, straightforward, and clean. I light them at the start of
every ritual I do at the altar, saying a prayer much like that found in DSIC or other texts like the
Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano114 (which is pretty similar), and snuff them with a candle snuffer
at the end. I think this is the most appropriate course, at least for myself; this fulfills the caption-
based requirement that they be “holy wax Lights”, having undergone a prior consecration before
the ritual itself, but since DSIC doesn’t say anything about it, well. . . fire is still Fire, no matter
what, and Fire is holy by itself.115

2.8 The Brazier

So much for the candles. What about the incense holder? The DSIC text, calling it by the generic
phrase “vessel for the perfumes”, should e placed “between thy circle and the holy table on which
the crystal stands”. We’ll talk about the circle later on in a later post, but suffice to say here that
we’re to stand in a magic circle (one is given “of a simple construction” in the DSIC illustration),
with the crystal and pedestal on the table (or crystal on the Table of Practice, if you combine the
table and pedestal into a single object) outside the circle, and the “vessel for the perfumes” is to
be placed between the circle and the crystal. An illustration of such a vessel is given in the DSIC
illustration, with the caption “the Tripod on which the perfumes are put, & may be either held in
the hand or sett in the earth”. Oddly, the illustration looks nothing like a tripod to me; if anything,
it looks more like a steak or torch with a sharp butt on the bottom, as if it should be thrust into
the ground. Plus, the caption is weird; it says that it may be held in the hand, while the text says
to have it placed between the circle and crystal. I suppose one could hold the vessel such that it
sticks out beyond the bounds of the circle, but that seems both dangerous as well as super tiring
for the magician.
Now, the vast majority of magicians, myself included, tend to just use whatever sort of incense
holder we have available. Fr. RO mentions nothing special about using a tripod or brazier or
anything of the sort in RWC or SS, and simply says in SS that any kind of holder may be used, so
long as the incense can be put somewhere during the ritual; in the SS version of the rite, Fr. RO
places the incense burner behind and to the right of the Table of Practice and crystal, opposite
the candle. However, if we were to use a more strict interpretation of DSIC, the placement of
this would be in front of the Table of Practice, between it and the magician. That being said, I
myself like having the incense burner either off to the side or behind the crystal, but that’s just
me. Admittedly, having the incense between the magician and the crystal would probably help
produce visions in the crystal better in the eye of the magician or scryer, and I’ll probably take
that approach in the future, but I still feel more comfortable with it behind the crystal. We’ll talk
about specific placements later on.
As for the type of incense, DSIC suggests using a flame that can burn incenses or perfumes;
after all, charcoals, flames, and the like was what you had to use back in the day because such a
thing as self-igniting incense (like stick or cone) just didn’t really exist as a thing. However, since
113 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/blessing-of-water-chalk-candles-and-fire/
114 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part9
115 At this point, I neglected to mention that Frederick Hockley’s A Complete Book of Magic Science as well as the

Secret Grimoire of Turiel also include a pair of special candlesticks, one which has the divine name “‫ ”יהוה‬engraved
on the base, and the other “SADAY”. I apologize for the omission.

113
self-igniting incense is nowadays easily available, cheap, popular, and relatively safe to use, most
people just use that for convenience and simplicity’s sake. Likewise, Fr. RO says that the magician
may use any kind of incense they might prefer, whether stick or loose or whatever. For myself, it
depends on what I have on hand and how much I want to do; if I feel like being simple, I’ll use my
stick incense stuck in a brazier pot, and if not, I’ll use a self-igniting charcoal and drop some loose
incense on top of it.
Now, all that’s the pretty common stuff that many people tend to do. . . and, as usual, Fr. AC
takes a more strict interpretation. In GTSC, he describes his tripod in depth, and actually gives
a proper tripod shape to it instead of a weird stake shape. After all, tripod-style braziers are
ancient in many cultures, and give a pretty safe and convenient way to burn incenses or flames in
a controlled way. Examples of tripod-style braziers are given in figure 55.
In order to keep a constant airflow, Fr. AC says that he uses a wire mesh to support some
(presumably self-igniting) charcoals in the brazier. He describes a bit more about his specific
construction and the benefits to both stability, convenience, lightweight design, and safety, and it’s
good knowledge to have. He also describes the option of holding the vessel for incense to be “rather
cumbersome and unnecessary”, opting explicitly for a “self-supporting censor [sic]”. However, in line
with DSIC, he says that the vessel should be placed between the circle and crystal.
There’s really not much more else to say. Agrippa in his Fourth Book only says a bit about
vessels for incense (book IV, chapter 10)116 :

. . . You shall also have in readiness a precious perfume, and pure anointing oil; and let
them be both kept consecrated. There must also a Censer be set on the head of the
altar, wherein you shall kindle the holy fire, and make a perfume every day that you
shall pray. . . .

To be fair, the rite of invoking spirits (or, at least, “good spirits”) described by Agrippa’s Fourth
Book doesn’t precisely line up with DSIC, and here he says that there should be a censer placed
“on the head of the altar”, which I interpret to mean the back of it opposite where we might stand
(which gives a bit more credence and grounding to my own preferred approach of keeping the incense
burner behind the crystal). He also describes another use of censers later on in the same chapter:
Then a place being prepared pure and clean, and covered everywhere with white linen, on the
Lords day in the new of the moon let him enter into that place, clothed with clean white garments;
and let him exorcise the place, and bless it, and make a Circle therein with a sanctified coal; and
let there be written in the uttermost part of the Circle the names of the Angels, and in the inner
part thereof let there be written the mighty names of God: and let him place within the Circle, at
the four angles of the world, the Censers for the perfumes.
Again, while we’ll get into the construction of the magic circle in a later text, here Agrippa says
that there should be four censers placed at the four directions just inside the magic circle. However,
technically speaking, this is a separate ritual than the one described in the earlier passage, and is
one that’s even more unrelated to DSIC. Still, it’s informative, and as we’ll see when we talk about
the magic circle, there is some bearing this has on the magic circle as used in DSIC.
What about the incenses themselves? I mean, pretty much any and every grimoire and spellbook
gives some variation of incense recipe, ranging from the simple and unoffensive to the truly arcane
and noxious. Fr. AC’s GTSC gives several sets of incense recipes for each of the seven planets, no
less, all sourced from different texts, and any of them are pretty much fine. So long as the incense
116 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10

114
Figure 55: Examples of tripod-style braziers.

115
would be appropriate for the planet and spirit you’re conjuring—frankincense is always acceptable
for any spirit, even if only to placate and elevate them—you’d be fine. I don’t think the specific
incense matters, so long as you use it; customize it how you need or want to, or as appropriate for
the specific aim of conjuration. Because of the variability and abundance of incense recipes and
choices, I don’t think there’s much worth in discussing that here in this post or even in this series
of posts; just use the stuff.

2.9 “Thy Little Book”

In the ritual, at the point of having put incense in the brazier (or otherwise lit incense using
whatever kind and vessel you have) and just before the conjuration proper, DSIC instructs us to
do this:

. . . take out thy little book, which must be made about seven inches long, of pure white
virgin vellum or paper, likewise pen and ink must be ready to write down the name,
character, and office, likewise the seal or image of whatever spirit may appear (for this
I must tell you that it does not happen that the same spirit you call will always appear,
for you must try the spirit to know whether he be a pure or impure being, and this thou
shalt easily know by a firm and undoubted faith in God.)

So we have “thy little book”, which is given the following specifications:

• A book roughly 7” tall (though no specification is given as to width or number of pages).

• Pure white virgin (i.e. new and unused) vellum or paper.

Additionally, we’re to have pen and ink ready to go at our disposal. The purpose of this book
is so that we can write down the name of the spirit we’re conjuring, their character or characters
(seal, sigil, etc.), their office, and “the seal or image of whatever spirit may appear”.
What DSIC is describing here is none other than a Book of Spirits, or in Latin, Liber Spirituum.
This is described at length in Agrippa’s Fourth Book (book IV, chapter 9)117 to the point where I
hesitate even quoting sections from it here, because Agrippa goes on at length about it. Though I
strongly encourage you to just. . . .read Agrippa, here’s a very brief summary of the points of what
Agrippa is saying:

• A Liber Spirituum is to be made, consecrated, and used for the conjuration of specifically evil
spirits.

• Made of pure, clean, new, unused paper (aka “virgin paper”)

• Any pair of pages, left and right, are to be used for a single spirit
– On the left-hand page is drawn the image (depiction, visualization, etc.) of the spirit.
– On the right-hand page is drawn the oath of the spirit that uses its name, “dignity”
(office), and “place” (origin, role, function, etc.), underneath which is the seal of the
spirit.
117 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap9

116
 – Additional information, such as appropriate places, times, hours, planets, and the like
for the spirit, should also be noted as discovered or agreed upon
• Adorned with “Registers and Seals”, e.g. ribbon bookmarks containing glyphs representing
the spirit.

– This helps the magician open up the book to any specific spirit as needed at a moment’s
notice.
– This also helps prevent the book being opened up to any unwanted or undesired spirit
that might harm the magician or those around them.
• This book should be considered and kept as a sacred object, lest it “lose its virtue with
pollution and profanation”.

If this makes it sound like something out of a movie, then you’re getting the right idea. The
Liber Spirituum is essentially a magician’s own personal compendium of spirits, something far more
sorcerous than a mere Book of Shadows. The book itself is essentially a rolodex of and cellphone
for calling the spirits a magician has conjured, containing the contracts and oaths that he has made
the spirits swear by so that they might remain loyal and truthful to the magician, with all necessary
information so make future conjurations easier and swifter. Agrippa gives two ways to consecrate
such a book:

First Method Whenever a new spirit is conjured for the first time to the magic circle of the
magician, the spirit is to be bound into a triangle outside the circle. (This is pretty basic Solomonic
stuff a la the Lemegeton Goetia.) With that spirit in the triangle, the magician calls upon the spirit
to give their oath and bond to the magician, which is then recorded and consecrated in the book.

Second Method Make the book the same way as specified above, but at the end of the book,
write the different invocations, oaths, conjurations, bindings, and other prayers as one might use
in rituals (like those in the Lemegeton Goetia, Heptameron, or other Solomonic texts) “wherewith
every spirit may be bound”. This book then should then be “bound between two Tables or Lamens”,
meaning that special lamens (not like the angelic lamens we discussed before, but more like the
classic Solomonic lamens like the Pentagram of Solomon or Hexagram of Solomon) should be placed,
engraved, or attached to the front cover and back cover, and on the inside covers as well (same or
different). The spirits to be contained in the book are to be conjured with the oaths and prayers
written in it to the circle “within the space of three days”. This book is then wrapped up in clean
linen and buried securely (!) in the middle of the circle and covered, with the circle then being
destroyed. The spirits called upon are then given license to depart. Three days later, the magician
returns to that spot, makes a new circle, dig up the book, and without opening it, calling upon all
those same spirits earlier called upon.

Agrippa says that the first way is preferred, since even though the second method is easier and
of “much efficacy to produce every effect, except that in opening this book the spirit do not always
come visible”. This suggests that the first method, though probably more laborious to conjure each
and every spirit one by one separately and get their separate oaths written and sealed up in the
book, gives more power and potency to the book itself.

117
 As to how to use the book? Agrippa further continues that whenever the magician wants to
work with one of the spirits with which they have an oath in their Liber Spirituum, all they need
to do is open the book directly to that spirit’s entry (using the bookmark “Register”, not opening
up to any other page), invoke the spirit by their oath they gave along with their name and seal,
and simply go from there, giving license to depart to the spirit when you’re done with them. This
effectively gives the magician a way to work more expeditiously and easier with the spirit, as once
they have such an oath and bond with them, “without a Circle these Spirits may be called to appear,
according to the way which is above delivered about the consecration of a book” (book IV, chapter
14).
So, what’s the purpose of the Liber Spirituum? When we work with spirits, we ask, oblige,
compel, or force them to give us an oath and bond of theirs, complete with their name, office, role,
appropriate times/materials/etc., and depiction, upon which we can rely to ensure their continued
support and assistance at a later time. In doing so, we essentially enter into a formal relationship
with the spirit, where the full formality of a complete conjuration ritual with circle and candle and
incense and the like aren’t strictly necessary (unless deemed so depending on the nature of the oath
to be made by the spirit and the nature of the danger of said spirit). Agrippa makes it clear that
we only open the book when we need to, and then only to the select pages related to the spirit; the
mere act of opening the book is a conjuration unto itself, which is why we need to use “Registers”
or bookmarks to make sure we only open up to the right pages that we need and no other.
Now, of course, DSIC doesn’t really get into any of this except in the briefest of manners. It
does say a bit more in the ritual text about how such a book should be used once a spirit is conjured
and confirmed to be present:

Here let him swear, then write down his seal or character in thy book, and against it,
his office and times to be called, through God’s name; also write down any thing he may
teach thee, or any responses he may make to thy questions or interrogations, concerning
life or death, arts or sciences, or any other thing. . .

However, DSIC leaves out all the spiritual powers of such a book that Agrippa takes pains to
describe for us. As a result, many modern users of DSIC simply interpret this as little more than
a notebook-like catalog of spirits, who they are and what their information is and the like, turning
it into more of a record of works than a Liber Spirituum with real power and potency like what
Agrippa describes. To be sure, Fr. RO doesn’t take this sort of approach at all in RWC, nor does he
say anything about books or pens or ink or anything like this, though he does recommend taking
notes after or during conjurations for our own recordkeeping (whether it’s in RWC, SS, his blog,
or the old mailing list for RWC, I forget). For my part, I have two notebooks I use: one, which
is really more of a binder than anything, holds laminated pockets for each separate lamen I use
for conjuring different spirits, and the other is a spiral-bound notebook that I use to record the
conversations I have with the angels, headed at the top of each entry with the name and seal of
the spirit I’m conjuring, the date of the conjuration, any other information about the conjuration
(Moon phase, planetary transits, weather, illness, etc.), and the details of the conjuration itself,
what we discussed, and the like. I feel like this is a fairly common approach for those who write
anything about their conjurations at all, just to keep a record of what was done, when, and with
whom.
And then, of course, there’s Fr. AC, who dedicates a vast chunk of his GTSC chapter on the
tools of DSIC to the Liber Spirituum. He goes into fantastic depth about how his process of making
and consecrating one, its role in both the real practice and popular conceptions of magic, though he

118
largely keeps to Agrippa’s design and process, even going into detail about the specific materials he
used and his own experiences of using (or misusing) such a book. Going through Fr. AC’s blogs, I
was able to dig up two posts118119 in which he showed off two versions of his own Liber Spirituum,
with the newer one bound in brown leather (see figure 56) and the older one in black cloth (see
figure 57).
Honestly, I don’t know what or even where to begin quoting Fr. AC on this, because he devotes
a full eleven pages to GTSC to this topic. It’s a fascinating read, and he really goes to extreme
lengths to make it abundantly clear how to make, consecrate, and use such a tool. Towards the end
of GTSC, as well, he gives an example page from his own Liber Spirituum with his own selection for
the oath used for the conjuration of Cassiel, the angel of Saturn, and a full account of a conjuration
with the angel.
However. . . there’s something that really bothers me about the use of such a book with DSIC
(besides the fact that it seems like a lot of work compared to similar practices, like the Heptameron,
that don’t call for such a thing at all). While DSIC is literally titled “Drawing Spirits Into Crystals”,
the text appears to be focused most on the conjuration of angels. Yes, it can be used for other
spirits (as implied in some of the options given in the ritual text), but by and large, the ritual is
focused on angelic conjuration, and indeed, this is largely the main purpose for DSIC in modern
usage. If we consider this in light of what Agrippa is describing, well. . . Agrippa describes two kinds
of conjurations, of good spirits and of evil spirits, and angels fall among the good spirits. And, in
the chapters of the Fourth Book that involve such conjurations of good spirits, there is no mention
at all of books, oaths, bonds, or the like. It’s only in the context of the conjuration of evil spirits are
such things used or mentioned, and even Donald Tyson in his analysis of the Fourth Book agrees:
“The Book of Spirits is a book used by goetic magicians to compel the obedience of evil spirits.”
(He also gives a much more lucid and clear explanation of the construction, consecration, and use
of the Liber Spirituum, which I also encourage those who are interested to read.)
While I’m not saying that a Liber Spirituum can’t be used for “good spirits” like angels, I do
question whether it’s necessary or even encouraged to do so. By the nature of them being “good
spirits”, Agrippa suggests that it’s not necessary (perhaps not even possible) to get them to swear
oaths of this manner, probably because of their angelic and divine nature that transcends anything
we mortal humans might make them do120 . It’s only when we deal with “evil spirits”, such as
demons, devils, or any terrestrial, chthonic, or otherwise sublunary non-angelic spirit that we might
want to use a Liber Spirituum in the sense of how Agrippa describes one. I question Fr. AC’s
logic here when he uses a Liber Spirituum for angelic spirits; again, not that he can’t, but perhaps
that he shouldn’t. Besides, the oath he gives for the angel Cassiel of Saturn is no more than the
Heptameron conjuration for this angel121 , right down to the use of the final “&c.”, which I find an
odd choice for such an oath.
However, backing Fr. AC up, the Magus includes an illustration of “a specimen of the Book of
Spirits to be made of virgin Vellum” (see figure 58), which includes a depiction of the angel Cassiel
complete with the Latin Heptameron conjuration, again right down to the use of the final “&c.”.
So, while I find Fr. AC’s use of this approach to be odd, he is drawing precisely from the source
materials itself; while I may not like it, I cannot say that he’s doing things wrong. Yet, at the
same time, notice those two weird pentagram-like shapes on the illustration of Cassiel. These are
118 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-almost-there-i-promise.html
119 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2011/08/liber-spirituum-su-goetia.html
120 https://digitalambler.com/2019/04/15/when-god-says-no-on-god-and-the-angels/
121 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part23

119
Figure 56: Fr. AC’s newer Liber Spirituum.

120
Figure 57: Fr. AC’s older Liber Spirituum.

121
the “penetrate” (“penetrans”) and “broken” (“fracta”) characters from Agripppa (book IV, chapter
4)122 , which details the various characters of specifically evil spirits.
That the angel of Saturn might be considered an “evil spirit” is. . . honestly startling. Likewise,
the whole illustration is plucked almost verbatim from the following chapter in Agrippa’s Fourth
Book, the specific chapter on descriptions of spirits which technically all pertain to evil spirits.
Putting aside the possibility that an angel of a malefic planet might be considered “evil” by nature
of the planet, it seems like Barrett draws no distinction between angels (which I would presume
to be “good spirits” according to Agrippa) and “evil spirits”, which kinda makes sense given how
DSIC itself seems to conflate many of the aspects of Agrippa’s descriptions of conjurations of “good
spirits” and those of “evil spirits”. So it could well be that DSIC is well and truly recommending us
to use a Liber Spirituum for the angels in this light; this would make a lot of the confusion between
Agrippa’s different methods, as well as our idea that the seven angels on the table should be put
in the same ring as the four Kings, make much more sense, if it weren’t for the fact that making
planetary angels (or any type of angels) into “evil spirits” still makes little to no sense to my mind.
Now, at least if you’re using DSIC for non-angelic conjuration, then yes, by all means, having
a properly consecrated Liber Spirituum can be a great boon! Especially so, when you consider
the plus of not necessarily having to go through a full conjuration process for spirits once you’ve
already obtained their oath written in such a book. But even then, is it necessary? I would still
say no. For one, DSIC doesn’t suggest any miraculous or spiritual powers to “thy little book” or
that it can be used in such a way, but more importantly than that, there’s the penultimate prayer
of the DSIC process, the license to depart. Note the bold text:

Thou great and mighty spirit, inasmuch as thou camest in peace and in the name of the
ever blessed and righteous Trinity, so in this name thou mayest depart, and return to
us when we call thee in his name to whom every knee doth bow down. Fare
thee well, Michael; peace be between us, through our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Part of that license to depart is essentially a condition: “in the name of God go, and in the name
of God, return to me when I call upon you again when I call on you in the name of God”. We’re
essentially getting an underhanded agreement out of the spirit we’re telling to go, sending them on
the way out and getting their promise in the process that we can just call on them “when we call
[them] in [God’s] name” and, boom, they’ll appear. This is actually really sly when you think about
it: we’re telling them to go and, if they take that option, that in doing so they’ve already signed the
EULA to come back when we call on them. By virtue of the spirit leaving, they’ve already agreed
to it, even if they’re already heading out the door. The dismissal and ensuing absence of the spirit
has, effectively, become their signature.
Of course, what happens if the spirit doesn’t leave? Well, that’s where DSIC has nothing written
about what to do, and we’d resort to the usual Solomonic literature like the Lemegeton Goetia or
the Heptameron or the Bond of Solomon123 for exorcisms, threats, and the like, but so long as we
limit ourselves to good spirits, we really shouldn’t have a problem. We can touch on this topic
later when we get into the ritual process of DSIC (which. . . yikes, it’s been so long since having
started this post series and we’re still not there?!), but for now, suffice it to say that I don’t think
we need a physical object for the spirit to swear by when they can simply swear by them leaving
the conjuration ritual area.
122 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap4
123 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/munich-manual/bond-of-solomon/

122
Figure 58: The depiction of the Liber Spirituum from The Magus.

123
 Now, there is the simple fact that DSIC is saying that we need to use a book for writing
information about the spirit in. Sure! That makes total sense to me; nobody is going to argue
with the benefit of taking down notes from our conjuration rituals, and admittedly, DSIC makes
this book sound an awful lot like the Liber Spirituum of Agrippa, and by extension according to
Fr. AC, similar books of spirits in other goetic grimoires and Solomonic literature. But it doesn’t
necessitate such a book being used in that way; after all, it says “let him swear, then write down
his seal. . . ”, not “let him swear upon his seal”. After all, in the ritual text of DSIC, the “swearing”
going on here is nothing more than the authentication of the spirit, that they really are who they
say they are. That’s it, that’s all. DSIC, instead, says that the book should be used to “write down
any thing he may teach thee, or any responses he may make to thy questions or interrogations,
concerning life or death, arts or sciences, or any other thing”. It really does seem like the book for
DSIC is less a Liber Spirituum and more just a Commentarium Spirituum, a notebook of records
of conjurations.
In my view? You can use a proper Liber Spirituum if you want to for angelic or other “good
spirits”, but I don’t consider it necessary, and depending on your cosmological and theological
perspective, doing so may not even be recommended. But, if you’re going for a more goetic approach
for using DSIC, then you may want to consider a proper Liber Spirituum to give you the extra
edge, even though it, again, may not necessary depending on your specific goetic background and
methodology.
But. . . well, now that I think about it, the same logic above about using goetic tools for non-
goetic conjuration of angels in the sense of mixing up “evil spirit” methods with “good spirit” targets
can be applied to the wand and the ring just as much to the Liber Spirituum. Remember that
Agrippa doesn’t mention a wand at all in his Fourth Book, but instead the use of a sword with
which one may threaten, impel, and force spirits to swear oaths or behave, which fits in well with
Lemegeton- and Key of Solomon-type goetia; ditto for the ring, which is to preserve the safety and
health of the magician by further reinforcing their divinely-granted authority and protection. Yet,
if DSIC is focused on angelic works. . . then why? Just as Agrippa doesn’t reference the use of a
Liber Spirituum when working with good spirits, he likewise doesn’t reference wands (or swords)
or rings with them, either, simply just prayer (book IV, chapter 10)124 , basically in a way like what
the Arbatel suggests125 (which itself was presented in the same volume as the Fourth Book ):

But in the end of these days, on the last day, you shall fast more strictly: and fasting on
the day following, at the rising of the sun, you may enter into the holy place, using the
ceremonies before spoken of, first by sprinkling your self, then with making a perfume,
you shall sign your self with holy oil in the forehead, and anoint your eyes; using prayer
in all these Consecrations. Then you shall open the holy Lamen, and pray before the
altar upon your knees, as said above: and then an invocation being made to the Angels,
they will appear unto you, which you desire; which you shall entertain with a benign
and chaste communication, and license them to depart.

In that sense, if we’re just sticking to the seven planetary angels (or angels generally, or any
entity in the “good spirit” class), then just as there’s (as I argue) no need for a Liber Spirituum,
there’d be equally no need for a wand or ring, because these are more goetic tools that aren’t as
suited for working with “good spirits” as they would be for “evil spirits”. There’s nothing saying you
can’t use them, of course, but I feel like the argument isn’t strong enough for saying that you have
124 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10
125 https://digitalambler.com/2017/09/17/practical-arbatel-conjuration-of-the-olympic-spirit-again-but-longer/

124
to use them. If you’re going for demonic, “goetic”, or other entities in the “evil spirits” category,
then yes, you should use the wand (or sword, or both) as well as the ring, but I think bringing them
into angelic conjurations doesn’t actually do much.
I mean, consider: what are you, pitiful and God-reliant mortal that you are, going to do when
Michael comes down in conjuration to some demand of yours and says “lol nah, fuk u“ 126 ? Are you
going to imperil Michael himself with your wand to step back and away from the crystal? Are you
going to try binding the angel into a badly-made triangle and make him swear an oath to you that
would supersede the very will of God that he embodies and exists to fulfill? Are you going to use
your dinky ring of Solomon, engraved with Michael’s very own name, to protect yourself from the
very same entity himself? Would that ring even do anything against him to hold him back? I would
say that such an approach would be among the most laughable of circumstances if it weren’t for the
horrifiyingly hubristic danger of trying to antagonize such powerfully divine and divinely powerful
entities when they refuse to bow to your whims, bowing instead only to the whims of God. The
approach would be different for working with the Lemegeton Goetia crowd, to be sure, but then,
those wouldn’t be classed into Agrippa’s “good spirits”.
The only thing I can think of that might argue for the use of the wand and the ring in DSIC isn’t
to work with and defend yourself from the spirit you’re conjuring directly, but from other spirits.
After all, when engaging with the spiritual world. . .

126 https://digitalambler.com/2019/04/15/when-god-says-no-on-god-and-the-angels/

125
. . . well, you may end up with a lot more clawing at your door than just the thing you called. That
is, after all, why we trace the circle with the wand, to keep ourselves safe from malign spiritual
influences, especially if we get a deceiving spirit instead of the one we called, and for the same
reason why we wear the ring. But, heck, even the use of the magic circle itself isn’t called for by
Agrippa for the conjuration of “good spirits” in a way that would line up with DSIC. It’s like DSIC
keeps mashing up two main sources, one of which is clearly Agrippa’s Fourth Book non-Solomonic
methods and the other something clearly far more explicitly and detailedly Solomonic, but DSIC
doesn’t appear to be doing a great job at sorting this all out and making the mashup clean. It
works as it is, to be sure, but perhaps it could work better if it were rethought and tweaked a bit
to be a bit more direct.

2.10 The Magic Circle

Now, let’s talk about the last big design element from the DSIC text: the magic circle itself. Like
the wand, the DSIC text doesn’t actually prescribe a design or list of elements to go onto the magic
circle, it just says that we need to use one. However, also like the wand, the illustration gives us
the design information we need (see figure 1). It’s the middle circle in the whole thing, captioned
as “the magic Circle of a simple construction in which the operator must stand or sit when he uses
the Chrystal”. Let’s analyze the design; what do we see? We see another double circle design, with
the space between the outer and inner circles containing the following symbols and contents:
• Four hexagrams, each aligned to one of the four directions of the circle (top, bottom, left,
right).
• The divine name “Tetragrammaton” (cursive typeface) in the upper left quadrant, written
from the inside of the circles.
• The divine name “Elohim” (print typeface) in the lower left quadrant, written from the outside
of the circles.
• The divine name “ADONAI” (print typeface, all caps) in the lower right quadrant, written
from the outside of the circles.
• The symbol for the Sun and the seal of the angel Michael of the Sun in the upper right
quadrant, written form the inside of the circles.
I can’t explain the use of different typefaces and styles used for the three divine names on the
circle; I don’t want to just outright say that they’re meaningless and just up to the whimsy of the
illustrator, but I’m pretty sure that’s the case, since there’s usually no need for or meaning behind
distinguishing such typefaces. Additionally, the shift in direction from the upper two quadrants
(names/seals written from the perspective of inside the circle) and the lower two quadrants (written
from the perspective of outside the circle) almost certainly seems like an error to me; in almost
every kind of magic circle I can think of in which the magician stands within, any contents in the
design of the circle are written from the perspective of the magician inside not the spirits outside.
Fr. AC likewise seems to agree with me127 , and though he embellishes his circle from the DSIC
illustration basis (as in figure 59), he keeps the basic divine names written in the same typeface (he
likes using blackletter, it would seem, to give things that good old-fashioned medieval flair) and all
written from the perspective of the magician inside the circle.
127 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-almost-there-i-promise.html

126
 Figure 59: Fr. AC’s DSIC circle, specifically for the angel of Saturn.

For the three quadrants with divine names, he has three elements each:

• The divine name written in Latin script

• The same name written in Hebrew square script

• The same name written in paleo-Sinitic/Phoenician script

In GTSC, he admits that “this was an inspirational modification on my part, but one that seemed
appropriate to fill the space of the circle”. I’ll also note that he uses YHVH in Hebrew/Phoenician
scripts for transliterating Tetragrammaton, because, well, the Tetragrammaton is literally just that.
As usual, props to Fr. AC for aesthetics and balance (though my eyes rebel and revolt at the sight
of blackletter).
However, there are others, like Fr. FC128 and Jason Augustus Newcomb129 , who use the DSIC
illustration orientation, with Newcomb literally just basically using a gigantic printout of the circle,
typefaces and all (see figure 60). Fr. FC, on the other hand, redrew it, but also kept the typefaces
relatively the same. I don’t care for this approach, personally, but that’s just me. I’d rather have
all the names written in the same typeface and facing the same direction.
128 http://fraterfc.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-to-trithemius-part-1-tools.html
129 http://jasonaugustusnewcomb.com/store/trithemius-art-of-drawing-spirits-into-crystals-circle-kit-details.

html

127
 Figure 60: Jason August Newcomb’s DSIC circle template.

Then there’s the case of that last quadrant. The DSIC illustration, since the text is focused on
using Michael of the Sun as the exemplar, fills this last quadrant with two things: the glyph of the
Sun closer to the top, and the seal of the angel Michael clockwise from it towards the right. This
suggests that this quadrant needs two things: the glyph of the planet and the seal of the angel.
That’s it. Of course, if you wanted to add to it, you could; Fr. AC does just that, and adds the
name of the angel (in both Latin script and Hebrew square script) and the signs of the zodiac that
planet rules to this segment. As with his additions to the other three quadrants, he says that he
does “not think this is necessary for the strength of the circle, but it felt appropriate for the design”.
Now, how does one go about customizing the circle for different planets? Some people draw out
the circle in chalk or erasable/washable paint or some other nonpermanent material every time for
each individual conjuration, while others like to have something more fixed, like a circle painted on
canvas or carpet. So how might one customize the quadrant for the angel-specific stuff? The general
approach is to make the base of the circle blank on that part, and make “covers” or “layovers” made
of the same material to temporarily fix onto the circle to cover the blankness with the necessary
information, or something transparent laid on top likewise to fill it in. Other people use large firm
boards that fit together, like flooring tiles, using one board for each quadrant, and just swap out
the board for the angelic quadrant for each angel.
While I get the practical reasons for making disassembling/overwritten circles, and while the
ingenuity delights me. . . it kinda weirds me out, to be honest. We use circles because they provide
an unbroken boundary, while most times, using objects such as disassembling boards or pinned-on
quadrant segments causes a natural break to form. I would rather just draw the circle out in chalk
or have multiple circles painted on canvas carpets, but I also admit that neither are the most feasible
of approaches for many people. Do what you can; I would recommend most having a canvas with a

128
complete circle painted on and a blank quadrant here, with thin pieces of fabric that can be pinned
on securely and flatly that fill only the space between the inner and outer circle without breaking
them or overwriting them.
Why would we use this sort of method of making custom circles for different conjurations? The
way I see it, the custom circle helps link us more to the spirit we’re trying to conjure, in a way that
reinforces the connection that we make also by wearing the lamen of that same spirit. Plus, in case
things (for some reason) go awry, building such a circle that’s already aligned with the spirit can
help deflect, ameliorate, or appease any harm they might cause or bring, in a sort of roundabout
“hair of the dog that bit you” kind of way.
How big should the magic circle be? Neither Agrippa nor DSIC says. For yourself, make it big
enough to do what you need to do; I’d recommend making the diameter as tall as you are plus
about half a foot on either side. So, for me, since I’m about 6’3” tall, I’d ideally make my circle
about 7’ wide. That way, I have enough space to walk, sit, stand, and lie down in with ease without
having to cross the boundary at all, with enough space to have another person in the circle with me
as well as to have a small table for supplies and the like at hand. Of course, for space constraints,
you could just have it be a smaller circle that’s literally just a few feet wide, big enough for you to
stand or sit in for the duration of that conjuration. Not a big deal, I suppose; if you want to give
numerological meaning to the size of the circle, you’re free to do so, but so long as it’s big enough
for you to handle the task at hand, whatever size will be fine.
How should the circle be oriented? While one might associate different names of God with the
different directions (as I did in my own Circle of Art tarp project130 a few years back), there’s
nothing in DSIC that suggests how to actually orient it, though a natural suggestion of aligning the
four hexagrams with the four directions makes sense. However, Fr. AC in GTSC says that, rather
than aligning the hexagrams to the four directions, one aligns the circle such that the quadrant
with the planet and seal of the angel lies directly between the magician (in the center of the circle)
and the crystal. I like this idea quite a lot, actually; with that, there’s this three-fold presence of
the spirit in the ritual: once in the crystal, once upon the circle between crystal and magician, and
once upon the magician’s own breast in the form of the lamen, all in a single straight line. Plus,
with the planet and seal of the angel positioned closest to the crystal, it would help facilitate their
presence anyway in the crystal itself. (This is, of course, assuming that the crystal and the rest of
that set of equipment is placed outside the magic circle itself, following Fr. AC’s method. This is
the expected reading, but Fr. RO and Fr. Acher use a different setup, which we’ll discuss in a later
post.)
So is that it? This seems to be it. Magic circle, done and figured out, right? Of course not.
At this point, we should remind ourselves: fundamentally, what is the magic circle for? Circles
are for protection, especially from the harmful influences of demons and other malignant spirits; as
the preface to the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano appended to Agrippa’s Fourth Book says, “the
greatest power is attributed to the Circles; For they are certain fortresses to defend the operators
safe from the evil Spirits”. But, as we touched on at the end of the last post, DSIC seems to be
far more geared towards the conjuration of angels (even though it doesn’t necessitate that it only
be used as such), which would suggest that we use more of Agrippa’s “good spirit” methods in his
Fourth Book, which appear more theurgical and akin to the Arbatel 131 . Yet, parts of DSIC (the
wand and the ring, the Liber Spirituum, and now the circle) are things that fall more into Agrippa’s
“evil spirit” methods, which is far more Solomonic in nature. If we’re working with “good spirits”
130 https://digitalambler.com/materia/circle-of-art/
131 https://digitalambler.com/2017/09/17/practical-arbatel-conjuration-of-the-olympic-spirit-again-but-longer/

129
like angels, then such a tool of impelling and such measures of protection would be unnecessary (and
probably outright useless if push came to shove) when working with such spirits. If we’re working
with good spirits, then by using these things, we’re insulating ourselves from ambient malignant
spirits or preparing ourselves just in case for a deceptive evil spirit to steal the place of the good
spirit we’re calling.
Yet, DSIC is comparatively unprepared when it comes to “what to do if a spirit is stubborn”, so
I don’t think the “just in case” reason above makes a lot of sense, nor does “general protection from
ambient malignant spirits”; after all, it’s not like we’re necessarily more vulnerable in a conjuration,
so why not always wear a ring of Solomon for the protection it would provide? Moreover, why would
Agrippa, who is otherwise pretty descriptive with his methods in the Fourth Book, say nothing about
spiritual protection when working with good spirits? If the spirits are as good as they say they
are, especially if you’re working with angels, and even more the planetary or archangels themselves,
then there’s nothing to fear since the angels themselves will defend and protect you, kicking out
any deception or deceiving spirit in the process, no circle or ring needed.
Again, this ties into the weirdness of DSIC plainly being a mashup of both Solomonic and
non-Solomonic techniques of working with spirits, sometimes conflating the methods described by
Agrippa as some being for “good spirits” and others being for “evil spirits”; whatever texts the author
of DSIC was referencing, Agrippa was only one of them. This can also be evidenced in the weird
phrasing of that caption, “of a simple construction”, which bothers me. Unlike the specifications
of the pedestal, table, wand, lamen, and the like, this part of DSIC would appear to give us some
leeway in how the circle is designed. Since most of the DSIC toolset and structure is heavily
indebted to Agrippa’s Fourth Book, we can turn to there to see what Agrippa says about the circle
design, just like we did for the lamen. . . except there’s not so much written about it as there is
about the lamen. Book IV, chapter 10132 has “another Rite more easie to perform for calling forth
spirits” that isn’t really connected to the parts that would use lamens or the other DSIC technique
that the Fourth Book would anticipate, but this segment has a bit about it:

Then a place being prepared pure and clean, and covered everywhere with white linen,
on the Lord’s Day in the new of the Moon let him enter into that place, clothed with
clean white garments; and let him exorcise the place, and bless it, and make a Circle
therein with a sanctified coal; and let there be written in the uttermost part of the Circle
the names of the Angels, and in the inner part thereof let there be written the mighty
names of God: and let him place within the Circle, at the four angles of the world, the
Censers for the perfumes. . .

Later on, in chapter 12133 on “calling forth evil spirits to a magic circle”, Agrippa gives a different
design to be used for evil spirits as opposed to good spirits:

These things being considered, let there be a Circle framed in the place elected, as much
for the defense of the Invocant as for the confirmation of the Spirit. And in the Circle
it self there are to be written the divine general names, and those things which do yield
defense unto us; and with them, those divine names which do rule this Planet, and the
Offices of the Spirit himself; there shall also be written therein, the names of the good
Spirits which bear rule, and are able to bind and constrain that Spirit which we intend to
call. And if we will any more fortify and strengthen our Circle, we may add Characters
132 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10c
133 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12

130
 and Pentacles agreeing to the work; then also if we will, we may either within or without
the Circle, frame an angular figure, with the inscription of such convenient numbers, as
are congruent amongst themselves to our work; which are also to be known, according
to manner of numbers and figures: of which in the second book of Occult Philosophy it
is sufficiently spoken.

And, later in chapter 13134 , a modification that some magicians make:

And therefore some use to make a Gate in the Circle, whereby they may go in and out,
which they open and shut as they please, and fortify it with holy Names and Pentacles.

It doesn’t seem like that last bit about the gate influenced the DSIC circle any, so we can
probably ignore it. But the first two sections quoted seem more important, and if we were to
combine the two into a single circle format, then we can gather up the following design instructions
from them:

• The circle should be written in consecrated/blessed/sanctified coal on the ground in a clean

and pure place on a Sunday on a new Moon (or as soon afterwards as possible)

• Four censers for incense should be placed at the four angles of the circle (north, south, east,
west) (recall our earlier talk about the brazier and incense vessel)
• The names of the angels (to be conjured? angels generally?) are to be written in the “utter-
most” part of the circle

• Divine names should be written in the “inner part” of the circle, including and especially those
that rule or are connected to the planet associated with the spirit as well as the general names
(as said before from the first part of our lamen discussion)
• The names and characters of the spirit to be conjured

• The names of the “good spirits” that rule over and can bind/thwart the spirit being conjured
(especially if an “evil spirit”)
• Any characters, pentacles, names, etc. as desired to further empower the circle
• “Angular figures” according to the number of the planet of the spirit (consider how there are
four hexagrams in the DSIC circle, hexagrams having six points, six being the qabbalistic
number of the Sun)

In other words, it seems like Agrippa is giving us some huge leeway, indeed, when it comes to
how we want to draw the circle, and though he gives so many options as to be vague, the DSIC
illustration. . . doesn’t have a lot of this, nor does it clearly match up with what Agrippa describes.
So I’m not entirely sure that DSIC is actually drawing strictly from Agrippa here.
If the DSIC caption is describing its circle as being “of a simple construction”, then the logical
question to ask is “simple compared to what?” And that’s where I think it’s helpful to take a step
back and consider what else the author and illustrator of DSIC might be drawing on. We know
that Agrippa’s Fourth Book is huge, of course, but when the Fourth Book was published, it wasn’t
134 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap13

131
published alone. One of the other texts in the volume that contains the Fourth Book is the well-
praised and famous Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano, which is a classic of the Solomonic tradition
and has earlier origins, too, including an entry in the Munich Manual that I’ve translated from
Latin135 and is extant in a few other texts that predate the Fourth Book, though not by a lot. One
of the most fascinating parts of this work is the complex magic circle design that the Heptameron
says to make:

• Four circles, with three rings of names

• The innermost ring has the four divine names Tetragrammaton, Adonay, Eloy, and Agla
• The outermost ring has the name of the “Angel of the Air” and their ministers that correspond
to the planet of the spirit being conjured
• The middle ring has the name and seal of the angel of the planet being conjured, the angels
of that day, the sacred name of the season in which the conjuration takes place; the sacred
names of the angels, head of the sign, Earth, Sun, and Moon that all pertain to that season;
and the sacred name of the hour in which the conjuration is to take place
• The inside of the innermost ring has the phrase “Alpha et Ω” (Alpha and ōmega) written,
with “Alpha” at the top and “et Ω” at the bottom

• The two innermost circles have two lines running through them at a right angle aligned to
the four directions

The classic example given in the text is the following circle, to be performed on a Sunday at
the first hour of the day in springtime (see figure 61). Granted that we can see some similarities
between this method and what Agrippa describes, this is certainly not a simple circle, especially
as the outermost and middle rings will completely change based on the season, hour, and day in
which the conjuration is to be performed. However, the Heptameron method seems to fix the
angels/planetary spirits to be conjured to the day itself, so it would seem like it would discourage
performing a conjuration of the spirits of the Moon in an hour of the Moon on a Sunday, even though
the Heptameron also gives a list of hours of the days of the week and their presiding planets/angels,
so I’m not sure on that specific point; if the Heptameron method does allow such a thing, then the
angelic name, seal, and likely the other angels of the planet would also change.
All the same, take a close look at the innermost ring: three of the four names (Tetragrammaton,
Adonay, and Eloy) are basically the same as those used in the DSIC circle (Tetragrammaton, Adonai,
Elohim), with Agla (which is Hebrew acronym for the Hebrew phrase “atah gibor le-olam Adonai”,
or “You, my Lord, are mighty forever”, itself treated as a divine name in many grimoires) being
dropped in favor of having the planetary glyph and angelic seal. It seems to me like the DSIC
circle is a vastly simplified form of the Heptameron circle, keeping only most of the innermost
circle, replacing one of the divine names with the planetary/angelic stuff, and replacing the crosses
with hexagrams. Whether the hexagrams are supposed to be specifically solar symbols (having
six points, per Agrippa’s instructions) or are just meant as general holy symbols can’t be inferred
from the DSIC text; everyone seems to take them as being general, and I’m not opposed to that
approach, but if you wanted to take an Agrippan approach, you might use heptagrams for Venus
circles, octograms for Mercury circles, triangles for Saturn circles, and the like. Besides, it’s clear
135 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/munich-manual/planetary-conjurations/

132
 Figure 61: The example circle from the Heptameron.

that the DSIC author/illustrator has a thing for hexagrams given their presence elsewhere on its
ritual tools, so I think that hexagrams should be used in general here.
However, consider that the four outside pentagrams are aligned to the cross-quarters. If we
consider Fr. AC’s suggestion above that the quadrant of the circle containing the planet and seal
of the spirit to be conjured is aligned to the crystal, then that would place the hexagrams in the
DSIC circle at the cross-quarters, which would match with the Heptameron stars here. And, if we
consider that the innermost “Alpha et ř” was removed from the circle, it might be possible that the
DSIC author removed this and put it on the back of the wand (“Ego Alpha et Omega”), so that the
same element was present, just on a different item. It’s not that much of a stretch.
Personally, I’m very confident in saying that the DSIC circle is a simplified form of the Hep-
tameron circle, because there’s so much in DSIC that takes directly from the Heptameron in terms
of the specific prayers and exorcisms that are used in both, especially when you hone in on the
phrasing of certain things. Plus there’s the use of the same angels and, at least as far as Michael of
the Sun is concerned, the same seals for those angels as in the Heptameron. And we know it’s specif-
ically the Heptameron and not other extant closely-related texts like the Munich Manual because
we see an association of Michael with the Sun, which is present in the Heptameron as published with
Agrippa’s Fourth Book, yet Agrippa himself in the various Scales chapters of his book II136 gives
Michael to Mercury and Raphael to the Sun—as did nearly every earlier and contemporaneous text
up until the publication of this version of the Heptameron, it’d seem. And that’s a really convincing
136 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap10

133
point for me, too, although Trithemius did give Michael to the Sun and Raphael to Mercury in
his own writings, such as in the Steganographia 137 and De Septem Secundeis 138 . Odd, then, that
Agrippa, himself a student of Trithemius, would revert to the earlier form, perhaps based on older
and more common sources than what his teacher had provided him; perhaps there were too many
differences in angels generally, as Trithemius also gave Saturn to the angel Orifiel and Jupiter to
Zachariel, which don’t match up with the Heptameron angels or Agrippa’s angels.
To be fair, many of the things to be said according to the Heptameron closely follow a variety of
other Solomonic texts, many of which tend to rely ultimately on the famous Liber Juratus Honorii,
or the Sworn Book of Honorius 139 (LJH). This places DSIC in that same line of literature lineage,
albeit in a much reduced and simplified form. For a comparable text, probably one of the closest
contemporaneous texts to DSIC-qua-Solomonica could well be the Secret Grimoire of Turiel 140
(SGT), which itself is given in Frederick Hockley’s version of A Complete Book of Magic Science
(CBMS). Though it’s not exactly clear when this text arose, it’s clear that it’s not that old, and
Fr. AC references this text in bringing in a few extra consecrations and blessings, such as for the
lamen, which makes a good fit in general due to how closely related in time and content this is
with DSIC. Plus, there’s also a number of other strong parallels between SGT/CBMS and DSIC
in some of the tools as far as the candlesticks and wand are concerned. SGT/CMBS is a lot more
in-depth and Christian in tone and approach than DSIC (ironic, considering how DSIC is attributed
to a Christian abbot), and it’s probably from a different lineage of Solomonica than the DSIC and
Heptameron are (probably more from a Key of Solomon line and which incorporates the Arbatel ?),
but it’s a good secondary text to reference for fleshing out and understanding DSIC more.
What makes DSIC fascinating to me is that it appears to blend LHJ-descended Heptameron-
style (maybe with echoes of the Grimoire of Pope Honorius 141 , itself from a more Grimorium
Verum 142 line?) Solomonica with Agrippa’s Three Books and Fourth Book, that latter which,
although Agrippa was surely aware of Solomonic literature and practices when he wrote them
(whether or not he was the actual author of the Fourth Book ), isn’t directly tied into it. And
it presents such a simplified form of angelic conjuration compared to earlier texts that one might
even call it dumbed-down; I’m reminded of some of the modern debates about whether to take the
Fr. RO approach versus the Fr. AC approach, with some railing against Fr. RO’s RWC-/SS-style
DSIC format, when the text itself is essentially a heavily-reduced mishmash of earlier texts. I can
quite easily and realistically imagine that, when Barrett published The Magus, the hardliners then
would have the same complaints about DSIC then as hardliners today might have about SS. Of
course, is simplicity a bad thing? Not by my standard, so long as it works. Does DSIC work? Yup,
and that’s the important bit. And the same could be said of Fr. RO’s style of DSIC, too; I can
certainly claim to that.
At this point, we’ve basically covered all the physical implements of DSIC: the crystal, the
pedestal for the crystal and the table to support that (or the combined Table of Practice if you
want to take a simpler route), the lamens, the wand and book and candles and censer, and now
the magic circle. With all of the physical implements of DSIC finally described, what about mak-
ing, consecrating, and using them? This is where we start to both incorporate DSIC itself while
departing from DSIC proper to flesh it all out as desired, and we’ll pick up on that next.
137 http://www.esotericarchives.com/tritheim/stegano3.htm
138 http://www.esotericarchives.com/tritheim/tritem.htm
139 http://www.esotericarchives.com/juratus/juratus.htm
140 http://the-eye.eu/public/Books/Ocult/The%20Secret%20Grimoire%20Of%20Turiel.pdf
141 https://zalbarath666.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/grimoire-of-honorius.pdf
142 http://www.akor.cc/More%20Books/GrimoriumVerum.PDF

134
3 On Constructions and Consecrations
So, at this point, we know what we need, right? According to DSIC, we need the following tools,
supplies, and general bits of equipment:

• a crystal ball
• a pedestal to support the crystal

• a table to support the pedestal

• two “holy wax lights”, i.e. consecrated candles
• two silver candlesticks to support the candles

• a brazier or other form of vessel for incense, as well as incense and a source of combustion for
it
• a magic circle
• a wand

• a ring of Solomon
• a lamen for the spirit we’re conjuring
• a Book of Spirits, with pen and ink

These are all the implements we need according to the text of DSIC. However, unlike other
texts such as the Key of Solomon or Lemegeton, instructions for preparing all the above are badly
specified: where specifications are given at all, some are extremely sparse while others are pretty
detailed. We did touch on some of the designs, specifications, and constructions of the above in
our earlier DSIC posts, but before we get onto how to actually use all these things, this would be a
good time to actually specify what we can, backed up with other sources like what’s in Agrippa’s
Fourth Book or other texts.
Okay, so, what do we know from DSIC about the size, materials, and processes used to make
everything? First, let’s remind ourselves once more of our old friend, the DSIC illustration (see
figure 1). We’ve already gone over the designs, inscriptions, and the like for everything in earlier
posts, so we can ignore those for this post. Let’s focus instead on the materials and overall form of
the materials as DSIC gives them. Where I say “engraved” below, this may also be interpreted as
“written”, “gilded”, or “inscribed”, depending on the materials to be used.

Crystal quartz, about 1.500 diameter, spherical, as clear as possible.

Plate pure gold, size not stated (but likely about 2.300 diameter based on image), circular (according
to image), engraved on the front and back with divine names and symbols.

Pedestal ebony or ivory, size not stated, shaped and engraved like in image.
Table materials not stated, size not stated, shape not stated.

135
Ring materials not stated, size not stated, shape not stated (but likely that from The Magus‘
earlier illustration).
Wand black ebony, size not stated, shaped and engraved as in image.
Lamen materials not stated, size not stated, shape not stated, engraved as in image.
Circle materials not stated, size not stated, shaped and engraved as in image.
Candles wax, size not stated, must be “holy”
Candlesticks silver, size not stated, shaped as in or approximated by image.
Brazier materials not stated (though must be fireproof), size not stated, shaped as in image.
Liber Spirituum pure white new/unused, vellum or paper, about 700 long, shape not stated.
Pen materials not stated, size not stated, shape not stated.
Ink materials not stated.
Incense materials not stated.

We don’t have a lot to go on here; DSIC leaves so many of these objects badly specified, if at
all, but just says that we need them. As a result, many people will have different interpretations
of what needs to be done and now much work or style needs to go into all these things, as well as
taking into consideration availability and cost of some of these tools and implements. This goes
doubly for other things that we might expect to see, based on other Western grimoires or Solomonic
literature: robes, crowns, specific types of incense, and the like. We just don’t have a lot. We could
bring in more things, though it wouldn’t necessarily be “strictly DSIC”, or we could use variants
of the things, like using the actual tripod-style vessel for incense that Fr. AC uses instead of the
stake-shaped one from the DSIC illustration, , or substituting the specific pedestal from the DSIC
illustration with the one we saw from Frederick Hockley’s Occult Spells: A Nineteenth Century
Grimoire (see figure 17).
Still, we know enough to get started. Knowing what the ritual text of DSIC prescribes to use
as tools, implements, and supplies is all well and good, but because this is a ritual text we’re
discussing, and one that falls more-or-less within the Western grimoire and Solomonic traditions,
we can’t talk about tool construction without discussing tool consecration; we can only get but so
far if we discuss the purely physical materials involved without discussing how to not just make
them but prepare them in a way appropriate for our needs. Granted, not everything necessarily
needs to be made in a magical or spiritual way, but it sure helps if it does. This is the essence of
consecration.
First, what do we mean by consecration? The word itself literally means “make or declare
sacred”, which seems straightforward enough, but how is this thought of from an occult standpoint?
Agrippa goes on at length in his Fourth Book on the topic (book IV, chapter 8)143 , which is pretty
well-phrased, in my opinion, so let me just offer a summary of what he says here so as to spare
everyone the bother of an unnecessarily long quote:

• All instruments and things used for magic should be consecrated.

143 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap8

136
• Consecration is achieved through the power of the person performing the consecration and
the virtue of the prayer used for consecration.
• The person performing the consecration must live their life in a holy way and must possess the
power of sanctification (i.e. consecration), both of which are achieved through “dignification
and initiation”, and must also have a strong faith in both.

• The prayer used for consecration must be suitably holy for the purpose, and such holiness
may be derived in one of three ways:
– From one’s own divine inspiration
– From the power transferred to such a prayer by initiation or ordination into a spiritual
tradition
– From the sanctification and sanctity of calling upon, remembering, or referring to other
things that are holy or done in a holy way, and may be related to the thing presently
being consecrated.
∗ For water: how God placed the Firmament in the “midst of the waters”, how God
placed the font of water in Paradise from which came the four holy rivers to water
the whole Earth, how God sent forth the flood to destroy the Nephilim, how God
manipulated the waters of the Red Sea during the Exodus of the Jews, how Moses
drew forth water from a stone, etc.
∗ For fire: how God made Fire to be an instrument to execute justice and punishment
and vengeance and expiation of sins, how God will command a conflagration to
precede him when he judges the world, how God appeared to Moses in the form of
a burning bush, etc.
∗ For oils and perfumes: how God decreed that the holy anointing oil be made and
kept and used, how the name “Christ” itself indicates anointing, how the two divine
olive trees produce oil for the lamps that burn continually before the face of God,
etc.
∗ For candles and lamps: how the altar of God contains a sacred fire for sacrifice, how
there are seven lamps that burn before the face of God, etc. For a circle or place: the
sanctification of the Throne of God, Mount Sinai, the Tabernacle, of the Covenant,
the Holy of Holies, the Temple of Jerusalem, Mount Golgotha, the Temple of Christ,
Mount Tabor, etc.
∗ For swords: how a sword was divinely and miraculously sent to Judah of the Mac-
cabees, etc.
∗ For books, drawings, writings, etc.: how God sanctified the Tablets of the Ten Com-
mandments, how God sanctified the Old and New Testaments, the sanctification of
the Law and of Prophets and of Scriptures, the Testament/Book/Knowledge/Wisdom
of God, etc.
• Some consecrations make use of divine names, holy seals, sacramentals of the Church, and
other apparati of divinity to lead to a general effect of sanctification and atonement.

• Every consecration should make use primarily of consecrated water, oil, fire, and incense.

137
 • Every consecration should be performed in the presence of some source of light, preferably
from one or more consecrated candles (literally “holy wax-lights”, note the phrasing!) or lamps.
• Every consecration of things that are profane, polluted, or defiled in any way should be
preceded first by an exorcism and atonement in order to make them sufficiently pure so as to
better receive the virtue of consecration.

• Every consecration should be followed by a blessing upon the object, with the breath passing
the lips (i.e. either spoken aloud or silently so long as breath is flowing).
• Every consecration should be performed with one’s own holiness, authority, license, and need
in mind, all performed earnestly and intently.

So much for the general ideas and notions. In addition to the things to be remembered for a variety
of consecrations, Agrippa also gives a few specific rules, too:

• When consecrating a circle or other ritual space, the Prayer of Solomon at the Dedication of
the Temple (2 Chronicles 6:14-42)144 should be recited while sprinkling the area with holy
water and burning sacred incense.

• When consecrating instruments and “all other things whatsoever that are serviceable to this
Art”, they are to be sprinkled with holy water, suffumigated in sacred incense, anointed with
holy oil, sealed “with some holy Sigil”, and blessed with prayer, after having commemorated
things that were made or done in a holy way as noted above.

And, moreover, he describes two other methods of consecration in addition to the processes and
methods given above:

• “Superstitious” consecration, by which the rite and act of consecration or collection of any
sacrament in the Church is transferred to that thing which we would consecrate.
– This is a little unclear to me, but it seems like when an object either comes in contact
with something that has been duly consecrated by someone with the power to do so
(e.g. touching a ritual knife with a consecrated Host of the Eucharist).
– Alternatively, this could be when something is consecrated “by virtue of” some sacrament
(e.g. “by the virtue of my baptism, may this dagger be baptized and made holy and fit
for divine works”).

• Vows, oblations, and sacrifice also produce a kind of consecration, given that they are repre-
sentative of a pact or exchange of power and resource between the one who gives and the one
who receives.
– Whenever we dedicate something with intent and purpose, the thing becomes conse-
crated.
– Examples include both physical things like incense, oils, rings, and talismans, as well as
immaterial things like sigils, prayers, enchantments, pictures, and so forth.
144 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles+6:14-42&version=KJV

138
 Agrippa mentions at the end of this section in his Fourth Book that many of these topics about
consecration are those “of which we have largely spoken in our third book of Occult Philosophy”,
and it’s true; book III, chapter 62145 basically touches all of the above, but pretty much everything
from chapter 54146 (“Of cleanness, and how to be observed”) to chapter 64147 (“Of certain religious
observations, ceremonies, and rites of perfumings, unctions, and the like”) are useful to read here
for more information on how to perform these types of ceremonies and works.
But, on top of all that we get from Agrippa’s books (which is good at a high-level but poor for
specific implementation), we also can build upon the vast majority of Solomonic and other Western
grimoiric/magical literature which contains specific rites, prayers, exorcisms, and benedictions to
be used for a variety of the tools called for in DSIC. In addition to scouring for whatever we could
get from the rest of Francis Barrett’s The Magus, of special note to us would be those of the
Heptameron, the Liber Juratus Honorii, the Key of Solomon (especially book II148 which gives
plenty of consecrations for a variety of tools and supplies), the Secret Grimoire of Turiel, and to a
lesser extent, the Lemegeton, but I’m sure that there are various other texts that we could draw on
for what we would need.
That being said, DSIC doesn’t really prescribe consecrations for many of the things that we
need in the ritual, or when they do (especially the “two holy wax lights”), no consecration is given.
The way I think of it, there are three reasons for this:

1. Some things are consecrated ahead of time, and DSIC just doesn’t specify them (e.g. the
candles).
2. Some things are consecrated “on the fly” in the process of the ritual itself (e.g. the crystal and
the circle).
3. Some things are consecrated “automatically”, whether by the natural virtues of the substances
and materials from which they are made, or in the process of constructing them by virtue
of the things (especially holy names, holy sigils, seals of spirits, etc.) written, inscribed, or
engraved upon them.

And, when it comes to your approach to consecration, there are three ways you can go about it:

Strict Approach If the text doesn’t say to do something, don’t do it. Conversely, if the text says
to do something, do it.
Lenient Approach If the text doesn’t say to do something, you don’t have to do anything if you
don’t want to, but you can bring in influences from other texts if desired. But, if the text
definitely says to do something, do it, at least as best as you can.
Free Approach Like the lenient approach (if the doesn’t doesn’t specify something, you can do
something if you want to anyway), but if the text does say to do something specifically, you
can take it or leave it, or substitute with another method or construction instead.

The thing about the free approach, even though the way I phrased it might raise some hackles
or elicit some sort of immediate “ugh, newbs” response, is that it’s probably the most common
145 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3e.htm#chap62
146 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3d.htm#chap54
147 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3e.htm#chap64
148 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm

139
approach by far, at least in some cases, because of how bad a job DSIC does at specifying most
things. Consider the pedestal: most people just omit it and fold the design elements of it into the
table to produce a Table of Practice, which doesn’t properly match up with DSIC anyway, but
which works all the same, as well as the fact that most people don’t bother with a Liber Spirituum
or ring of Solomon. Additionally, though DSIC (and all its predecessors and contemporaries) was
written in a heavily Christian or Abrahamic occcultural sphere, many people tend to omit some of
the phrasing or change it so that it’s least starkly Christian, or they’ll replace certain names with
others to make more Hermetic or qabbalistic sense (e.g. using the divine name Shaddai El Chai
in the conjuration itself instead of “blessed and holy Tetragrammaton” when calling upon spirits of
the Moon, since that divine name is used for the sephirah Yesod, associated with the Moon).
If one were to take a grimoire-fundamentalist or grimoire-purist approach, then DSIC might be
a disappointing text, because it leaves so much unspecified that goes against so much of what we’re
used to in a complete grimoire. For that reason, the strict approach becomes the least satisfying
option to take, with the lenient approach becoming something more like what we see Fr. AC taking
in GTSC. For instance, Fr. AC anoints his crystal with an appropriate fluid condenser, references
the “benediction of the lamen” and the invocations for the days of the week from the Secret Grimoire
of Turiel (specifically from Frederick Hockley’s A Complete Book of Magic Science) as well as using
the weekday prayers from the Heptameron as the oaths for the seven planetary angels, and gives
plenty of tips on preparation, purification, and the like—none of which are found in DSIC, but
which Fr. AC finds it beneficial to do regardless so as to fill in the gaps left behind by DSIC. In
this “lenient” approach (“lenient” only in the sense of bringing in more things to DSIC than are
strictly present), we’d want to do more consecrations ahead of time than simply relying on on-
the-fly consecrations for the few things that are made that way, or than by relying on automatic
consecrations alone.
In all fairness, I don’t think the strict approach to DSIC is actually feasible, because DSIC is
so high-level and bare-bones of a ritual implementation of conjuration that it really needs outside
information and practices to make it more complete. Yes, you could get by with doing what the
ritual text describes and no more or less, but that’d be like reading some of the entries in the Greek
Magical Papyri and thinking that those would be complete, too. Consider the Consecration of the
Twelve Faces of Hēlios149 (PGM IV.1596—1715), which is my ritual implementation of what the
PGM gives, which is only a prayer and nothing else; heck, anywhere we see “add/do/perform the
usual” means that there are necessarily gaps that would need to be filled in. I consider the DSIC in
a similar light: it’s a great ritual framework for performing conjurations, but it’s a framework and
structure that only has some specifications, not all the ones we’d need to have a fully fleshed-out
ritual. That’s where texts like Fr. AC’s GTSC and Fr. RO’s SS come into play, because they offer
(more or less) full implementations of DSIC, complete with scripts, descriptions, instructions, pro-
cesses, and the like. However, because DSIC specifies so little, any two magician’s implementations
of DSIC will most likely differ in some of the details, keeping only what DSIC actually specifies in
common between them.
Okay, so, that being said, let’s take a look at the few consecrations provides us. Of the tools and
supplies that the DSIC text prescribes, only three things are to be consecrated on the fly, viz. in
the order they appear in the ritual: the crystal used for conjuring the spirit, the magic circle, and
the incense. The crystal is consecrated by laying your hand upon it and praying over it, the circle
is consecrated by tracing its boundaries with the wand, and the incense is consecrated by praying
over them after it’s been ignited. That’s pretty much it; we can get into the specific wording of
149 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/classical-hermetic-rituals/consecration-of-the-twelve-faces-of-helios/

140
these prayers in a later post, but suffice it here to say that this is all that DSIC provides us. But,
as far as these specific prayers are concerned, it’s clear that the author of DSIC basically took the
exorcism/consecration/blessing of the incense from the Heptameron, but the Heptameron differs in
the process a bit for the incense, and doesn’t use the same consecration of the circle at all, nor does
Heptameron include a consecration for the crystal since the Heptameron doesn’t make use of any
scrying medium. The conjuration of the Ars Paulina from the Lemegeton includes a bit about the
crystal, but though there are some similarities between this and what’s in DSIC, it’s not all that
comparable.
That DSIC makes use of Heptameron prayers isn’t surprising; after all, we saw how clearly the
Heptameron influenced DSIC at least as far as its magic circle design, and as we’ll eventually see,
the overall process of the Heptameron can kinda be seen in DSIC, too. However, it is surprising
that DSIC, despite being indebted to Agrippa on so many other accounts, seems to almost ignore
Agrippa’s prescriptions and methods of consecration, not even going as far as what the Heptameron
does for the magic circle in sprinkling the magic circle or incense with holy water before blessing
them. And, considering that there are some similarities between the stuff in the Secret Grimoire of
Turiel (a.k.a. Hockley’s A Complete Book of Magic Science), which is most likely roughly contem-
poraneous150 with DSIC, there’s plenty of stuff in there that might be considered parallel works,
too, especially as Hockley was likely in touch with people who did both DSIC and Turiel stuff.
Since DSIC doesn’t offer a lot in terms of how to actually make, prepare, or consecrate, we
need to take some initiative on our own to figure out how not only physically construct the things,
but under what magical or astrological conditions and what consecrations need to be performed
on each. For this, we can look to the Heptameron, the Liber Juratus Honorii, the Key of Solomon
(especially book II which gives plenty of consecrations for a variety of tools and supplies) and
its other variants/sisters/antecedents like the Veritable Key of Solomon, the Secret Grimoire of
Turiel (and its near-identical sister text, A Complete Book of Magic Science by Frederick Hockley),
the Lemegeton, and elsewhere as needed, in addition to what Agrippa says about consecrations
generally like we discussed last time (book IV, chapter 8)151 . What follows is my recommendations
for procuring, making, and consecrating the tools and supplies called for by DSIC.
Note that I’m going to prescribe the same supplies and materials that DSIC does, but if you
can’t access them due to scarcity or lack of affordability, either do what you can or make do with
what you can. Likewise, I’m going to focus on the DSIC-style tools, including the pedestal and
table; if you want to substitute or use alternatives, try to take the same logic I’m using and apply
it as best you can. Also, I assume some things for granted, that you have (or know how to make
or otherwise procure) some basic elements of the Western magical tradition, including holy water,
holy oil, church incense, and the basic stuff that isn’t explicitly called for by DSIC but which are
such basic, fundamental staples that we all end up using anyway.

3.1 Lamens
Based on Agrippa and other texts, we know that all spirits have a planetary affinity, and it’s this
planetary affinity that we make use of when designing lamens by putting the name and seal of that
planet or the angel presiding over that planet into the central hexagram. Since the whole design of
150 Murtaugh, S. “Authentication of ‘The Secret Grimoire of Turiel’ in comparison with Frederick Hockley’s “A

Complete Book of Magic Science” ’ (2013). https://www.academia.edu/4062068/Authentication_of_The_Secret_

Grimoire_of_Turiel_updated_
151 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap8

141
the lamen comes from Agrippa (book IV, chapter 10)152 , which provides the design and process for
making them, we should use that method: make the lamen in the day and hour of that planet when
the Moon is increasing (between New and Full). The lamen can be made of a metal associated with
that planet, in fresh unused wax mixed with herbs or oils or dyes appropriate to that planet, or
of clean new paper colored appropriately for that planet. The overall shape of the lamen may be
circular or made in a polygon whose number of sides corresponds to the number of that planet.
However, DSIC gives the option to have this always made on a “square plate of silver” in addition
to paper; silver makes sense, since silver is the metal of the Moon, and the Moon may be used as a
substitute for any other planet since the Moon is the lowest of the planets closest to Earth, receiving
and sending all the rays of all the other planets; four makes sense, as well, as it’s the number of
four directions and four elements of the world. However, even if one makes a lamen for any planet
in this way, I would still recommend that the planetary day and hour appropriate to the planet of
the spirit be used, and not of the Moon, unless the spirit for whom the lamen is made is a lunar
spirit.
No matter what, however, the lamen must be made so that it can be worn, hung from the neck
so that the lamen itself covers the middle of the chest (about the area of the sternum). The size
should be large enough to be able to both clearly read and write all the names and symbols on it;
300 or 400 in diameter, depending on the size of the elements, should be sufficient. The lamen should
either be made to fit in a frame that can be worn as a pendant, or the lamen itself should have a
hole or loop at the top for a string, strap, thong, chain, necklace, or other material that can allow
it to be worn as such. Though not required, I recommend the string/chain/etc. be washed in a
small amount of holy water at minimum to at least cleanse and purify it.
Either way, create the lamen in the day and hour of the planet that is aligned with the spirit to
be conjured while the Moon is increasing; as a rule, and this goes for everything else, if you don’t
finish it in the same hour, you can either continue working on it (using the moment of starting the
project as the major concern) or set it aside to continue (and maybe finish) for the next possible
hour(s) that fulfills the same condition (keeping the whole creation from start to finish locked within
the same planetary influences).
No consecration is given for the lamens in DSIC; they’re just to be put on immediately before
tracing the circle. Fr. AC references the Benediction of the Lamen found in the Secret Grimoire
of Turiel, but properly speaking, that lamen in that text isn’t the same kind of lamen that we’re
using for DSIC; if you want to apply it, go ahead, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Considering that
these lamens are effectively talismans of spirits in and of themselves, in order to properly consecrate
them in the usual way, we’d need to first conjure the spirit—but that’s precisely the point of making
the lamen in the first place! This is a chicken-or-the-egg problem here, but Agrippa says that the
lamens should be consecrated according to the same principles he usually gives: sprinkle with holy
water, anoint with oil, suffumigate with incense, etc. In that case, in the same timeframe as one
makes the lamen, I would do just that: sprinkle it with holy water, anoint it with an appropriate
kind of oil for the spirit or planet, suffumigate it in a bit of incense appropriate to that spirit or
planet, and offer a prayer to God that the lamen be given the virtues and resonance of that spirit
and planet for conjuration, that sort of thing.
152 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10b

142
3.2 Wand
The wand should be made out of ebony, and have written upon it in gold ink (whether directly on
the surface or engraved and then filled in) the required names and symbols. I recommend a custom
length of the distance between one’s elbow and tip of the middle finger, but any convenient size
(but ideally around 1800 ) may be used. The thickness of the wand, according to Fr. AC, should be
about the width of your index finger at it’s widest point; I don’t disagree, but use what you can,
so long as it feels natural and not too clunky to hold or use. Although a plain cylindrical rod is
shown in DSIC and is the format used by Fr. AC for his wands, I like shaping mine so that there’s
a “tip” at one end, either due to the shape of the wand or by attaching some sort of crystal point
to it; this is up to you and your tastes, of course.
I can’t find any specific planetary affinity for ebony; it’s a wonderful wood that works with all
powers powerfully, but its planetary affinity could be argued in different ways. Since the wand
is the tool of Hermēs, one could argue for an affinity with Mercury; as a scepter, Jupiter; as a
replacement for the Solomonic sword, Mars; as a replacement for the Solomonic black-handled
knife, and in alignment with its dark and hard properties, Saturn; considering the gold used for
inscribing on the wand, the Sun. Fr. AC suggests Mercury the most, given that the wand is the
symbol of the magician and of Hermēs, and how ebony compounds all these natures into a single
material; I agree with him, especially as well given that the wand and staff from the Key of Solomon
(book II, chapter 8)153 recommends the first day and hour of Mercury for its making. In that light,
while any planetary time may be used for the creation of the wand, I would be most in agreement
with using days and hours of Mercury.
No consecration of this tool is present in DSIC or Agrippa, though as Barrett says for the
Heptameron sword in The Magus, and in agreement with general principles from Agrippa, there
should be a prayer of consecration said over it. To this end, I would recommend sprinkling the
wand with holy water, anointing it with holy oil (if you’re gilding the wand with gold leaf, you
could mix this into the size oil used as adhesive as well), suffumigating it with holy incense (church
incense works, or incense compounded of frankincense, benzoin, myrrh, and dragon’s blood). For
such a prayer, we might turn to those of the staff/wand or the sword from the Key of Solomon as
mentioned above (again, remember that the DSIC wand is a combination of the Solomonic wand
and Solomonic sword!), or another or original such prayer might be recited instead. For that reason,
one might as well use the prayer for the Consecration of the Sword from the Secret Grimoire of
Turiel.

3.3 Crystal
DSIC only says to “procure of a lapidary” such a crystal, and since most people aren’t expected to
have access to raw quartz (or beryl) and the tools to shape and polish it, this makes sense. However,
there’s nothing stopping you if you do.
Given the crystal’s lunar nature, at least according to Agrippa (book I, chapter 7)154 , it would
make the most sense to either craft yourself or purchase (and ideally have brought home) the crystal
in a day and hour of the Moon while the Moon is increasing. Increasing, here, would be useful
because, as the title of DSIC says, we want to “draw spirits into crystals”, so having a waxing Moon
would be helpful for the overall vibe of the crystal.
153 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap8
154 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap7

143
 If desired, as Fr. AC recommends in GTSC, the crystal may be washed ahead of time with a
fluid condenser, herbal wash, oil, or other suitably appropriate material conducive to visions and
manifestations. A lunar fluid condenser (wash, etc.) may be used for all rituals, but when dealing
with specifically non-lunar or Moon-unaffiliated spirits, substances appropriate to the planet of the
spirit may be used instead and washed off after the end of the ritual, preferably with holy water
and other mild cleansing substances.
No prior consecration is mentioned in DSIC for the plate, but instead, the crystal is conse-
crated on-the-fly in the course of the actual DSIC ritual; in addition to this, however, I would also
recommend at least an sprinkling of holy water before using it in any way for the first time.

3.4 Plate
The plate is to be made of pure gold, if possible. If pure gold is not available, then use what
you can: gold-filled metal, gold leaf, gold paint, shiny brass, or something similar that gives a
similar-enough effect, even if not ideal, would still be appropriate. It being a plate, it should be
made as thin as possible without losing stability or strength so as to properly support the weight
of the crystal (which, being small, should not be too heavy), but thin enough to allow the crystal
to almost completely protrude from both sides.
Due to the solar nature of gold, the plate should be made/purchased and engraved appropriately
in a day and hour of the Sun when the Moon is increasing. Even if you don’t use gold and replace
this with something else (engraving the pedestal and applying gold foil, using wood, etc.), this
should still be done at such a solar time.
However, because this is of a fundamentally different planetary nature than the (lunar) crystal,
I would not recommend setting the crystal into the plate on a day and hour of the Sun necessarily.
Either a day of the Moon and hour of the Sun or a day of the Sun and hour of the Moon while
the Moon is increasing would be better, in my mind, or (even more preferred) at the moment of
syzygy between the Sun and the Moon (i.e. a New Moon, but not if it’s a solar eclipse). Doing
so would most harmoniously link the illuminating power of the Sun and the materializing power of
the Moon.
However, if the crystal is being made to be kept separate from the pedestal, i.e. something
disassembled, or using a different format of such tools entirely (e.g. using a different kind of
horizontal stand or base for the crystal instead of supporting it vertically), then I would recommend
the stand, &c. be made in the day and hour of the Sun with a waxing Moon all the same, and the
crystal placed onto the stand at the start of the ritual process itself.
No consecration is mentioned in DSIC for the plate. However, as the plate is not used separately
from the pedestal, I would recommend conscerating this with the pedestal (if at all) once it’s set
into place.

3.5 Pedestal
The pedestal is to be made from either ebony or ivory, if possible. As noted in the earlier post,
because the crystal size is specified to be pretty small, and given the DSIC illustration, the main
face of the pedestal does not need to be large, either. It should be just large enough to securely
hold the plate with the crystal in place. Following the DSIC illustration, the pedestal plate may
be made in the churchhouse-type monstrance shape (as Fr. AC prefers to make them) with the
hexagram with central Yod above the crystal, or one may take the Hockley approach from Occult

144
Spells: A Nineteenth Century Grimoire for the more round, sunburst-type monstrance shape. The
pedestal does not need to be elaborate, just something sturdy enough to hold the plate with the
crystal aloft.
How high should the pedestal be made? High enough for the magician and/or scryer to com-
fortably look at it. Fr. AC doesn’t seem to make them very tall, but the Hockley illustration seems
to make it much taller, probably about 700 or 800 from base to top of the plate (including the small
cross at the top), assuming a 1.500 crystal.
As noted before with the wand, ebony’s best choice of planetary affinity may well be Mercury,
and the only other instance of ivory I can find on Esoteric Archives155 besides DSIC is the Clavicle
of Solomon, where it’s prescribed as the material for the handle of the white-handled knife (book II,
chapter 8)156 , which itself is to be made in the day and hour of Mercury while the Moon is increasing,
so whether the pedestal is to be made out of ebony or ivory (or another material entirely), a day
and hour of Mercury while the Moon is increasing is a good time to make it. Alternatively, like
when combining the crystal and the plate, one might use a combination of the days and hours of
the Sun and Moon, as both these planets rule over the two eyes by which we see, which is the whole
purpose of the pedestal. In addition to those times, I would also recommend making this while the
Sun is above the horizon during the daytime; I would argue, further to make this while the Sun is
setting (hours 7 through 12) to signify the “drawing down” of spirits into the crystal and triangle.
No consecration is mentioned in DSIC for the pedestal, nor do I personally think one is needed.
However, given the pedestal’s role as a DSIC-equivalent to the Catholic monstrance, one might
use the “Blessing of a Monstrance or Ostensorium” from the Rituale Romanum 157 as a basis for
saying such prayers of consecration, in addition to washing it with holy water, anointing it with oil
(especially on the engravings on the plate), and suffumigating it with holy incenses like frankincense.
This might be done as one sets the crystal into the plate, if it wasn’t done before the plate was set
into the pedestal.

3.6 Table
DSIC only tells us what needs to go on the table and the general organization for arranging them,
and nothing about its material or size. Honestly, use whatever material you find comfortable and
useful for this: some good sturdy wood is always a good choice (Fr. AC recommends oak, but I
don’t think it matters), but polished stone, pure unused wax, clean unused paper or parchment,
or any other material will work. You could even just draw this out in chalk or charcoal if you
wanted, but taking inspiration from the Liber Juratus Honorii for the Sigillum Dei Aemeth as well
as the use of wax tables from the Ars Almadel of the Lemegeton, wax might be the most ideal and
traditional material, but it’s honestly up to you. I just recommend whatever good, sturdy wood
you can find. Ebony might be ideal to match the ebony pedestal and ebony wand, but it’s not
necessary; the most important part of the table is the actual design itself.
As for the size, the table should be made big enough to accommodate all the things that need
to be written upon it clearly and neatly, and such that the base of the pedestal (or other stand) for
the crystal can fit comfortably within the inner triangle of the table without crossing the lines of the
triangle; we want to keep the physical contact of the thing holding the crystal, i.e. the temporary
155 http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm
156 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sl3847.htm#chap8b2
157 https://ritualeromanum.info/blessings-and-other-sacramentals-introduction-and-general-rules/

blessings-of-things-designated-for-sacred-purposes/4-blessing-of-a-monstrance-or-ostensorium/

145
body/vessel of the spirit, as confined as possible within the physical bounds of the triangle. Plan
accordingly based on your pedestal or other stand for the crystal.
As an alternative to making the table using a round piece of wood (or stone, or wax, or whatever),
consider that DSIC only ever calls this piece of equipment “the table on which the crystal stands”.
There’s nothing saying that this cannot be an actual table’s surface, such that, if you wanted,
you could take an actual table (side table, coffee table, bar table, dinner table, shelf, etc.) and
engrave/paint/write the necessary elements directly into/onto that surface. This is up to you,
whether you have the space to dedicate for a permanent DSIC altar or whether you want something
smaller, more flexible, and more manageable to move around onto different surfaces as needed.
Because I don’t like the idea of having large pieces of furniture that are hard to move and store
and not in constant, active use, I prefer the portable table method, but this is up to you.
Additionally, nothing is said about how permanent the markings need to be. While it would
be best to go the high-quality option of engraving, woodburning, painting, inlaying, or gilding the
design onto the table material (whether a portable disc or an actual tabletop’s surface), you could
make a temporary one on-the-fly with consecrated chalk or coal. Heck, if you were in a rush,
there’s nothing saying you couldn’t just print out a table onto paper and use that for on-the-fly,
gotta-do-this-now conjurations. It’s not ideal, but it is absolutely an option.
Due to the multiplanetary nature of the table, I don’t think it needs to be made in any one
kind of time or day or hour or anything like that, nor can I find any sort of recommended time for
other similar devices like the Sigillum Dei Aemeth or the Table of Practice from the Ars Paulina,
though the Ars Almadel recommends the days and hours of the Sun. I don’t think that’s necessary,
honestly, but it’s not a bad idea. Likewise, given that the purpose of the table is to bind spirits
given the triangle, one might use days and hours of Saturn (which is also placed over all the other
planets) instead. All that said, regardless of when you might make the table, I do like making things
in general while the Moon is waxing, and having the Moon waxing would help to “draw spirits into
crystals” just as said before.
No consecration is mentioned in DSIC for the table, nor do I personally think one is needed. If
nothing else, I think a preliminary sprinkling with holy water and a light amount of suffumigation
with holy incense of the table would be more than sufficient.
All the same considerations for the table apply if you choose to eschew the separate pedestal
and table approach for a combined Table of Practice approach.

3.7 Ring of Solomon

Following the example of both the Lemegeton Goetia as well as Barrett’s earlier illustration of magic
tools for use with the Heptameron, the ring should be made out of silver and sized appropriately
for the little finger of the right hand. The ring should have on the front (whether the band itself,
a bevel, or a gemstone) a hexagram with either a central dot in the center of it (C, the classic Seal
of Solomon) or, following the inspiration of the DSIC symbols, a central Yod in it. If a gemstone
is used, anything of a solar or fiery nature would be ideal, with carnelian or sunstone being most
preferred.
The ring should be made while the Moon is increasing, preferably in hours and days of the Sun,
or at a suitably appropriate solar election.
Taking the Lemegeton influence a bit further, and in agreement with Fr. AC, if one wishes to
have further inscriptions on the ring, then either “Tetragrammaton” or ‫ יהוה‬should be engraved on
the inside of the band, with “Michael” and “Anaphexeton” on the outside of the band (or, in Hebrew

146
interpreting “Anaphexeton” as “Tzabaoth”, ‫ מיכאל‬and ‫)צבאות‬158 .
No consecration is given for the ring in most texts, but if we look at some of older texts (e.g.
Testament of Solomon, Veritable Key of Solomon, etc.) as well as what Agrippa says about rings
generally, it might be best to consecrate the ring by sprinkling it with holy water, anointing it with
holy oil, suffumigating it with frankincense and other solar incenses all in the day and hour of the
Sun with the Moon waxing. The prayer before the exorcism of Astaroth from the Veritable Key of
Solomon could be used here for this (translation by Stephen Skinner):

O Lord God who created everything out of nothing, and foresaw them before they
existed, and crowned us with honor and glory and set us over the works of your hands,
and subjected all things under our feet, all sheep and oxen, and over this most sacred
word may you always be blessed for ever and ever. Amen.

Alternatively, the various prayers from the different versions of the Hygromanteia might be used
for consecrating the ring, although the rings from that line of Solomonic texts are of a different
nature and style. However, in general, it seems that the ring is consecrated automatically by
construction, so beyond sprinkling/anointing/suffumigating, anything more would be up to you.

3.8 Incense
DSIC says nothing about the types of incenses to be used, so we can default to whatever blends we
want that are in agreement with the planet of the spirit we’re calling upon. Fr. AC gives a bunch
of such lists in GTSC, but you can use whatever you want. In general, frankincense is always a
recommended default if you can’t get anything more specific than that. Whether you want to use
self-igniting incense like sticks or cones, loose incense on self-igniting charcoal, or loose incense on
a burning flame is up to you and not really important to the practice of DSIC.
The incense is consecrated on-the-fly in the course of the ritual. However, I would recom-
mend sprinkling the incense with a very small flick of holy water immediately before reciting their
consecration.

3.9 Vessel for Incense

Although the DSIC illustration gives a depiction of a stake-like “tripod” that may be held or thrust
into the ground, which agrees with the designs given in Secret Grimoire of Turiel and Complete
Book of Magic Science, this (a) is unwieldy as most people aren’t going to do many conjurations
outside anymore unless you have a specific need for it (b) can’t be put safely on a stable or solid
floor (c) is awkward and tiring to hold (d) assumes you’re going to be using loose incense to be burnt
on a source of sufficiently high heat enough to melt and burn them. None of these assumptions
are great to make anymore as a necessity, given the types of incense we have easily available to us
nowadays and given the fact we tend to do conjurations inside on hard floors, so a different kind of
brazier or incense vessel might be better instead. Use whatever you have that’s convenient: a tripod
with fireproof bowl (like what Fr. AC uses), a simple incense brazier, a stick holder, whatever.
No consecration of these is given in DSIC or any related text; incense is consecrated on-the-fly
in many Solomonic texts, but that doesn’t seem to apply to the incense. If the vessel is one made
of iron or steel, you could use the consecration of the needle or other iron instruments from the Key
158 http://theoccultandmagick.blogspot.com/2011/06/reconstructing-solomons-triangle.html

147
of Solomon (book II, chapter 19)159 in a day and hour of Venus (?!) (or of Jupiter, when the Key of
Solomon says to begin making the instruments but not finish them, or of Mercury instead of Venus
according to one manuscript) or, more simply than that, a day and hour of Mars. Mars might be
good in general, since the purpose of the incense vessel is to support some sort of combustion to
consume the incense. More generally, you could just sprinkle the vessel with holy water before its
initial use.

3.10 Candles
DSIC says to use “two holy wax lights”, which mandates two candles over any other source of
flame-based illumination (like oil lamps). Since most people nowadays use candles anyway with oil
lamps being far rarer, this is fine and acceptable for modern practice (and is an indication of the
relative modernity of DSIC). If you wanted to be fancy about it, like Fr. AC suggests, you could
use pure beeswax for them, but any wax would be fine, so long as the wax was new and fresh and
the candles not previously burned for any prior work or need. I personally recommend white or
uncolored plain wax for this for general workings, as it also ties in well with the silver candle holders
that are prescribed for their use, with white being both a color of the Moon and appropriate for all
works for all planets. Regardless, two candles should be used and prepared accordingly.
However, as Fr. AC says, you could switch them out for other candles colored appropriately for
the planet aligned with the spirit to be conjured, if you want. Frater AC also suggests that the
candles, if to be used specifically for a particular planet, may also be anointed with an appropriate
planetary or angelic fluid condenser, or oil, or some other substance to further align the candles
to the spirit to be called in the conjuration. I don’t like that approach, personally, and would
rather add a number of smaller candles to surround the table and crystal in a number and color
appropriate to that planet, both for extra light and as offerings, and anointing those instead.
Because DSIC says that the candles should be “holy”, this is where consecration for them is
mandated, but no consecration is given. The Key of Solomon gives a reasonable consecration of
candles (book II, chapter 12)160 , which is what I base my own consecration method on161 , to be
done in the day and hour of Mercury while the Moon is waxing.

3.11 Candle Holders

The holders for the candles should be made of silver or otherwise silver-plated metal; barring that,
any similarly high-polish, reflective, smooth candlesticks of a similar appearance would work fine,
so long as they can hold the candles upright in a stable and fireproof way. That’s basically it.
However, the Secret Grimoire of Turiel and Complete Book of Magic Science show similar
candlesticks, much taller in height, one of which has the Tetragrammaton engraved on the base in
Hebrew (‫)יהוה‬, the other the name “Saday” in Latin script. These same names in any combination
of script (‫ יהוה‬and ‫שדי‬, Tetragrammaton and Shadai, etc.) may be used.
No consecration of these is given in DSIC, Turiel, Hockley, Heptameron, or other Solomonic
texts. However, an initial washing or sprinkling with holy water is recommended before their initial
use.
159 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap19
160 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap12
161 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/blessing-of-water-chalk-candles-and-fire/

148
3.12 Book of Spirits (Liber Spirituum), Pen, and Ink
We already discussed the nature of the Liber Spirituum, so between the physical description given in
DSIC of it being made about 700 and from pure white, unused, new paper (or vellum, or parchment,
or whatever), I would most recommend the consecration process given as the first option by Agrippa
(book IV, chapter 9)162 . Fr. AC gives a more thorough description of this in GTSC, in which he
also references the Veritable Key of Solomon and other Solomonica. Follow those instructions; I
don’t need to explain them here, besides that they should be followed.
With such a consecrated Liber Spirituum, it would be ideal to have an appropriately-consecrated
pen and ink. For this, the Key of Solomon once again provides a wonderful consecration, whether
to use on its own or use as a base for a derived consecration (book II, chapter 14)163 . The ink may
also be consecrated appropriately, and may either be made general for use with all spirits, or may
be made in special ways for each of the seven planets (such that you’d have a Mars ink, a Saturn
ink, a Jupiter ink, etc.). Recipes for these may be found elsewhere.
But, if you’re taking the simpler approach more of a Commentarium Spirituum, a record of
conjurations rather than a proper Book of Spirits, then it can just be as simple as a new, unused
notebook, or as fancy as a unique custom-bound journal. Sprinkle it with holy water and flip the
pages through some frankincense, if you want. As for the pen, I recommend that you just use a new
ballpoint pen of your liking; you can use the aforementioned Key of Solomon-style consecration if
you want, or just do the same sprinkling/suffumigation with incense and be done with it. Both the
notebook and pen would most reasonably be consecrated in days and hours of Mercury while the
Moon is increasing, just as the Key of Solomon instructs. However, even with so little done for
them, both this notebook and ballpoint pen are still considered consecrated, so they shouldn’t be
used for mundane purposes after they’re consecrated.
Either way, Liber or Commentarium, keep it safe and free from inspection by the eyes of other
people that you don’t explicitly trust.

3.13 Circle
DSIC doesn’t say what the circle should be drawn upon, with what it should be drawn, or how big
it should be drawn. Obviously, the circle should be on the ground somehow, but depending on your
approach and the environment in which you’re working (outside, inside, hard floor, carpet, etc.),
you might take a different approach. You could use a tarp that you paint the circle upon, perhaps
using extra bits to temporarily cover the empty quadrant for the spirit information, or paint it on
in temporary/washable paint or ink that can later be washed out.
However, if you’re doing this on a hardwood floor or otherwise firm surface, and have the space
and means to do so, then according to Agrippa (book IV, chapter 10)164 , you would draw the circle
directly on the ground in consecrated coal, though chalk would work as well. Consecrating writing
materials of this sort could be as simple as just sprinkling them with holy water and suffumigating
them in frankincense or church incense, though I have my own method of consecrating chalk165
based on Key of Solomon consecrations for ink and pens that I’d prefer to use. If you’re doing
this outside on soil, then you’d inscribe the circle; given how we don’t have a dagger here for
that purpose like what we’d use in the Key of Solomon or other Solomonica, the next best choice
162 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap9
163 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap14
164 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10c
165 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/blessing-of-water-chalk-candles-and-fire/

149
available to us if we don’t want to introduce a dagger into the ceremony would be using the wand
itself. This makes sense, especially as the wand is the DSIC replacement for the Solomonic sword,
and given how Agrippa says to use the sword to inscribe pentagrams or triangles on the ground,
and given how the wand is supposed to at least trace the DSIC circle, this is a natural use for the
wand. If you didn’t want to use the wand, however, then we might introduce a dagger into our
DSIC methods, such as that from the Secret Grimoire of Turiel or the black-handled knife from
the Key of Solomon (book II, chapter 8)166 .
There are different diameters given in different grimoires; some say 90 in diameter, others say
9 in radius (meaning 180 in diameter!), whatever. Make the circle large enough for you and your
0

needs, taking into account how much space you have available, whether you have a scryer with you,
whether you need a table in the circle with you for supplies, whether you plan on spinning or lying
down, etc.
The circle is consecrated in the process of the DSIC ritual by tracing it with the wand with
the right hand, presumably (but not explicitly) clockwise, while reciting a short prayer. Unlike the
process described in the Heptameron or in Agrippa, DSIC does not say that one should sprinkle the
space with holy water before entering it; I personally like adding in this approach, though it’s not
strictly necessary according to DSIC, but one may also sprinkle the whole of the ritual area (both
inside the circle and outside it) as a single whole temple space before even the first proper prayer
of DSIC is said, reciting either Psalm 51:7167 (as in the Heptameron) or 2 Chronicles 16:14-42168
(as per Agrippa).

166 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap8
167 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+51:7&version=KJV
168 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles+6:14-42&version=KJV

150
4 Ritual Preparations
Okay, so we’ve got all the stuff that DSIC calls for, right? It’s been procured or made in some
way or another, according to the outlines of consecration we’ve been able to pluck together from a
variety of grimoires that more-or-less fall in line with what we’re doing. Now we can start setting
up for the actual ritual, right? Well. . . we’re not quite done talking about equipment yet, as it turns
out. We’ve covered all the designs, forms, functions, materials, and consecrations that we’d need
to take care of for the DSIC equipment, but once we get ready to implement the DSIC ritual itself
with all these tools and things we’ve now got, whether done by-the-book or made in with lenient or
freewheeling substitutions, there are a few more things that we need to consider for the conjuration
ritual.
As I mentioned earlier, I took some things for granted in the list of materials you’d need for
DSIC. I assume, for instance, that you have a resource to obtain or a method to create holy water,
holy oil, basic incenses, consecrated chalk or charcoal, a stool or chair, a small table to act as an
altar, and the like. This also assumes, of course, that you have things like lighters, candle snuffers,
scissors or utility knives, spare candles and candle holders, extra fabric, extra pen and paper, and
the like, just basic stuff that every temple should have or every magician should have on hand. But
even beyond that, there are a few other things to consider for DSIC that aren’t explicitly discussed
there but which we still need to here.

4.1 Attire
First up? Attire. This topic isn’t brought up by DSIC itself, so there’s nothing said about it, its
material, or its consecrations in DSIC, but it’s important enough to talk about here. The three
big suggestions for attire when it comes to rituals like this come from the Heptameron 169 , Agrippa
(book IV, chapter 10)170 , and the Key of Solomon (book II, chapter 6)171 , respectively:

1. “Let it be a priest’s garment, if it can be had, let it be of linen, and clean.”

2. “You shall also have a long garment of white linen, close before and behinde, which may cover
the whole body and the feet, and girt about you with a girdle. You shall also have a veil
of pure clean linen, and in the fore-part thereof let there be fixed golden or gilded Lamens,
with the inscription of the name Tetragrammaton; all which things are to be sanctified and
consecrated in order. . . [and] with your feet naked.”
3. “. . . ought to be of linen, as well as those which he weareth beneath them; and if he hath the
means they should be of silk. If they be of linen the thread of which they are made should
have been spun by a young maiden. . . shoes or boots should be made of white leather, on the
which should be marked the signs and characters of art. These shoes should be made during
the days of fast and abstinence, namely, during the nine days set apart before the beginning
of the operation, during which the necessary instruments also should be prepared, polished,
brightened, and cleaned.”

If you want to go the extra mile and be period-authentic by-the-book, then have at; it is
technically what the grimoires themselves recommend. Do I recommend it? No. In my opinion,
169 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part10
170 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10
171 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap6

151
you do not need to wear a robe. You don’t. I don’t know what else to tell you. Unless you’re
actually involved in a clerical or monastic order that wears robes, or unless you want to cosplay or
LARP for your present-day ceremony with anachronistic garb that will waste more of your money
and time than might give you spiritual or mental benefit, then there’s no need. We don’t live in
the 1500s anymore when robes were actually a common sight and had cultural meaning beyond
“weirdo”. You can get modern-day jalabiyyas, thobes, or similar garments worn by Muslims and
Bedouins in north Africa, the Middle East, and southeast Asia if you want, but this is just simply
not a priority or a concern for the vast majority of us.
Now, if you are in a priestly order? Wear priestly garments, if you wish and if you feel com-
fortable with it. If you’re in a monastic order? Well, chances are you’ll be wearing your habit
anyway, because it’s just what you wear. But otherwise, don’t bother, don’t fret, and don’t worry
about it. If you’re not a Christian priest or a Christian monk, or Christian at all, there’s no need
to dress like one. Wear what befits your station and authority. I claim that the whole point of
dressing in priestly garments in the grimoires, if you weren’t already a priest, was to get you in
the mindset of being a representative of Divinity and taking on the authority and license as befits
such a priest, and looking the part can trick the brain into believing it. But let’s be honest: most
people wouldn’t be able to tell a proper priest’s garment from a discount Halloween costume from
that one weird store in that shopping center across town, especially nowadays when there are fewer
and fewer actual Christians who actually recognize what the priest actually is and stands for in the
cosmos. If you’re not in that mindset, you don’t need to oblige yourself by forcing yourself into it.
Also, if you’re not in the Christian clergy of at least the level of a deacon? Do not wear a stole.
This isn’t something to argue with or disagree with: do not wear a stole. I don’t care what Fr. AC
says; you do not wear a stole unless you’ve actually taken holy orders in the Christian clergy. To do
otherwise is disrespectful to the priesthood and makes you out to be something you’re not, just as
if you were to wear Lukumí religious bead-jewelry reserved for initiates as a mark of their initiation,
or a Plains Indian war bonnet when you haven’t earned the right to. You can wear something else
instead of a stole, like a scarf or cape or sash or mantle or shawl or something, but wearing a proper
stole is effectively appropriation of a legitimate emblem of a legitimate priesthood for the sake of
LARPing; wearing a stole without having earned the right to do so in a ritual like this makes a
mockery of those who have actually earned the right to wear it. Unless you’ve actually taken holy
orders, do not wear a stole.
Now, should you have some sort of “temple garments”? Absolutely! Don’t get me wrong: I do
think that wearing special clothing reserved for ceremonies, and ideally white clothing at that, is
important, as is dressing modestly and in a way that covers most of the body for both protection
and purity. I do certainly think having a set of clothes you put on for Doing Formal Magic is a
highly recommended practice for getting you into the proper mindset. But does it need to be a
full-body robe made of white linen? I like robes and I like linen, but no, it doesn’t. You can get a
new white cotton hoodie and new white sweatpants, or get a new set of white scrubs, and those will
work fine as standard all-around all-purpose temple/ritual wear. I know this might seem weird, if
we’re spending so much time and money on the rest of DSIC/conjuration equipment, but I don’t
consider the clothes we wear—which are necessarily products of the time and culture we’re living
in, as opposed to the tools and names we’re using—to be nearly as important as the other things
we discussed in the last post. But, like I said, if you want to go with full-blown robes (and I have
my own set I do wear periodically for some rituals, consecrated according to the Key of Solomon,
sacred signs and all), then by all means, have at! But this sort of sartiorial choice is about as far
as it could get from being a priority in my opinion.

152
 That said, if you want, you can customize your look for specific rituals instead of donning your
default temple garments; in other words, dress for the party. This is something that Fr. RO uses to
its max when dressing for a planet: for Mars, wear a set of camo BDUs or a martial arts uniform
or similar “armor” or “battlegear”; for Jupiter, a three-piece business suit with cufflinks and a silk
tie, and the more expensive the better; for Venus, luxurious clothing that makes you feel Good,
something you could go to a high-class danceclub in; and so forth. I’ve used these outfits before, and
I find it great for getting into the mindset of particular planets; it can certainly be a boon, especially
if you’re trying to build up as much resonance as possible with the planet and its spirits that you’re
about to interact with. Fr. AC, who prefers the LARP approach of wearing robes, says that wearing
robes in the color of that planet can be an option, modern though it may be, but he would rather
keep the robe white (which I agree with) and use a girdle or loose belt colored appropriately. I
think that’s a fair approach; our scrubs/sweatpants-and-hoodie approach might use a colored scarf,
keffiyeh, sash, or other piece of fabric to do similarly. Either way, it’s up to you whether you
pick the the full-costume approach, colored-robe approach, or white-garments-with-an-accent-color
approach; dressing for a specific ritual can be helpful under the proper circumstances.
Whatever you select for your temple garments, whether scrubs or sweats or linen robes or priestly
costume or whatever, keep them clean and in good condition, don’t wear them when not engaged in
temple work, and don’t engage in any sort of ill-mannered, immodest behavior while wearing them
(unless specifically called for by the ritual, but that’s not a concern for us with DSIC). If you want,
you can consecrate your garments using the method from the Key of Solomon (book II, chapter
6)172 , even going so far as stitching on the proper symbols and the like in red silk thread, but that’s
still overkill for most people; unless you’re specifically working the Key of Solomon, then you can
just throw them in the washing machine with some holy water and call it a day. You can keep this
simple and modern based on what you can find accessible and appropriate.
When putting on your temple garments, there are prayers in Solomonic literature, ranging from
the Heptameron to the Key of Solomon to the Secret Grimoire of Turiel, that you’ll say when
putting on your clothing for your ritual; if you have a girdle (or scarf, sash, etc.) to wear in
addition to your temple garments, then recite the blessing of the girdle from the Secret Grimoire of
Turiel. You should be in a state of purity for putting on your temple garments, since you’re about
to literally clothe yourself with something made holy and pure, and must be about to engage in
ritual work since you have a need to put on temple garments. Since DSIC doesn’t bring up any
specific prayers or anything about clothing, we don’t need to bring up the specific prayers here, but
you can use them (or not) as you wish or desire.

4.2 Purification
But that brings up an important topic on its own: how do we purify ourselves and otherwise
spiritually prepare for the work to be done? There are basically three things that we need to do
every day for a certain number of days leading up to a ritual of this nature, especially for the first
time we contact a spirit or begin working with a planet that we’ve hitherto never formally contacted
before:

1. Fast.
2. Ablute.
3. Pray.
172 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap6

153
Fasting For this topic, I’ll just link to a post I wrote a bit ago on that topic extensively that
I encourage you to read173 . You could simply do a water fast (i.e. abstaining from all food and
only drinking pure water) or a water-and-bread fast; either of those are good if you wanted to be
extreme about this part, or you could just abstain from meat and alcohol and keep the rest of your
diet more-or-less the same. However you can limit your attachments, pleasures, indulgences, and
addictions to worldly substances and behaviors, do it. This also typically and especially includes
any and all sexual activity, whether performed alone or with anyone else in any number; not only
do we want to fast from food, we also want to fast from all distracting, immodest, and mundane
behaviors, for we are about to engage in a work of holiness and divinity, and need to sufficiently
detach ourselves from the world in order to do so. Read my post on fasting, both for food and
behaviors, and take it as food for thought.

Ablution Abluting refers to the act of spiritually cleansing and washing yourself; if fasting is
purifying yourself from the inside out, ablution is purifying yourself from the outside in. Just as we
fast and abstain from worldly things and behaviors to make sure that we go in with clean hearts
and minds into a ritual, we need to cleanse ourselves to make sure that we go in with clean hands
and mouths, too. Spiritual hygiene mitigates the spiritual problems we encounter in the world,
and reduces the influence they have when we engage in ritual. Not only that, but in this sort of
ritual, we’re coming into direct contact with divinity in a sacred setting; tracking in worldly filth
and spiritual garbage is disrespectful to the work we’re doing, the spirits we’re engaging with, and
the God we’re calling upon.

Prayer This, last and best of all, is essentially the warm-up exercise we do before we engage
in the heavy lifting of ritual, and helps us get in tune with both God as well as the spirits we’re
about to conjure. In effect, if we maintain a proper prayer practice and earnestly pray every day
in the lead-up to the ritual, we’ve basically focused ourselves so much for so long, seeking to adapt
ourselves to the work at hand, that by the time we even light the first candle, we’ve practically
already put into the contact of the spirit, just not in any focused way. And that’s on top of the
purificatory power of prayer, too! If fasting cleanses the body from the inside out and ablution
from the outside in, then prayer cleanses not the body but the mind, spirit, and soul, which helps
both our fasting practices and our ablution practices to be more efficacious all the while.

How long do we engage in these practices for? Different texts specify different lengths:

Agrippa (book IV, chapter 10)174 A full lunar month leading up to the ritual or, alternatively,
forty days, increasing one’s strictness on the day of the ritual itself
175
Heptameron Nine days, increasing one’s strictness on the final three days
Key of Solomon (book II, chapter 4)176 Nine days, increasing one’s strictness on the final three
days, and increasing it even more on the day of the ritual itself

Secret Grimoire of Turiel Seven days

173 https://digitalambler.com/2019/04/07/on-fasting-and-all-the-various-ways-you-can-fast/
174 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10
175 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part12
176 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol2.htm#chap4

154
 Personally, I think seven days of maintaining purifying practices is sufficient. If you want to go
for longer, by all means have at! Keeping up such practices can certainly be worth the trouble,
and I cannot argue with going longer if that’s what you can manage. Any less than seven days,
well. . . personally, I consider that one should purify themselves for a bare minimum of three days,
and that only if they honestly can’t manage longer than that for some reason—and, honestly, at
that point, I’d be wondering what else is going on, because if it’s something that significant or
major, then maybe it’s just not the best time to do that ritual. Only in cases of emergency should
one skip the purifying phase of preparation, but the fact that it’s an emergency indicates that
(a) you probably messed up somewhere along the line and should work it off in other ways than
cheapening yourself and the ritual by skipping the purifying process (b) the purifying process is
even more worthwhile and necessary than if it wasn’t an emergency.
Also, just as a note? I’m increasingly finding it important to maintain purification practices both
before and after a ritual. So, in my recommendation, I’d suggest that you’d spend at least seven
days purifying yourself and keeping yourself pure before the ritual, and at least a bare minimum
of three days, preferably seven, afterwards as well. This helps you to better incorporate the effects
from the ritual in a way without getting immediately tangled up in mundane, worldly, or fleshy
matters again, and gives you time to ease back into living a normal life.
Just as different texts specify different lengths for pre-ritual purification, so too do they often
offer specifics on the kinds of things to be done. Ablution, for instance, could just be bathing twice
a day, or it could also be specifically washing yourself with holy water, or it might also include a
daily anointing with holy oil after bathing proper. Fasting, as mentioned, isn’t just about food, but
about our behaviors as well; as the Key of Solomon says in the aforementioned chapter:

. . . is absolutely necessary to ordain and to prescribe care and observation, to abstain

from all things unlawful, and from every kind of impiety, impurity, wickedness, or im-
modesty, as well of body as of soul; as, for example, eating and drinking superabun-
dantly, and all sorts of vain words, buffooneries, slanders, calumnies, and other useless
discourse; but instead to do good deeds, speak honestly, keep a strict decency in all
things, never lose sight of modesty in walking, in conversation, in eating and drinking,
and in all things. . .

As for the kind of prayer we should cite? This could be something as easy as just partaking in
Mass every day during this period, if you’re Christian, or it could be through the recitation of a
particular prayer once a day, or once in the morning and twice in the evening, and the like. The
prayer from the Arbatel (aphorism II.14)177 is a wonderful choice for this, but the Key of Solomon
prayer from the same aforementioned chapter plus the confession and subsequent prayer from book
I, chapter 4178 are also excellent, as is the First Morning Prayer from the Secret Grimoire of Turiel
or the orison from book II, chapter 12179 from the Sacred Magic of Abramelin. No matter which
prayer you consider, the basic things we pray for that tend to be common across grimoires are
include, but are not limited to:

• recognizing, admitting to ourselves, and regretting the errors we make by doing the wrong
things or doing things wrongly
177 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/arbatel.htm#sep2
178 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol.htm#chap4
179 http://www.esotericarchives.com/abramelin/abramelin.htm#b2chap12

155
 • seeking help in assistance in our lives generally to lead better lives and to make the world
better
• seeking help through holy works specifically to lead better lives and to make the world better
• seeking the assistance of the particular spirit we wish to conjure, that God will permit us to
contact the spirit and the spirit to be allowed to be present for us and communicate with us
• recognizing our place in the world, both as base creatures of flesh and blood as well as spiritual
creatures made in the image of God
• recognizing the place and power of God

I don’t think it’s all that important which prayer you use, or whether you use any pre-written
prayers instead of praying from the heart, so long as you pray appropriately. At least, of course,
if you’re using DSIC, because no preliminary or preparatory work is specified. If we were working
a grimoire or other text that specifies a prayer to use, then we’d be using that, but for DSIC, I’d
recommend something along the lines of either the Arbatel prayer or the First Morning Prayer from
the Secret Grimoire of Turiel.
Given that these grimoires generally, and DSIC specifically, were written within a predominantly
Christian context, the prayers we use are essentially Christian prayers (or Abrahamic generally in
the case of the Key of Solomon or the Sacred Magic of Abramelin). That being said, prayers and
process work no matter what religion you practice; the only thing I wouldn’t recommend is if you
partake in the Holy Eucharist of Mass if you’re not baptized in the church. However, I do recognize
that many people aren’t comfortable with Christian prayers or calling upon Jesus—and, after all,
one of the whole reasons for my writing this series of posts to begin with is to analyze the DSIC
ritual to both flesh it out as well as have a firm foundation in what it’s specifically doing so I can
make my own less-Christian more-Hermetic approach for my own purposes that more closely aligns
with my general practices. If you’re not comfortable with these prayers as given by DSIC and other
grimoires in the Western magical tradition, then I think Fr. AC’s advice in GTSC is solid here: sit
with the ritual (like I am now), and compose your own prayers that match the wording and intent
of the original as closely as possible ahead of time. Fr. RO does this in RWC and SS, and I’ve seen
a few other variants over the years (mostly privately shared) to make them less Jesus-y and more
Hermetic-y or Hellenic-y. This is an acceptable variation and, if done right, won’t have an impact
on the effect of the ritual.
Though, that said, I personally question the logic of conjuring angels who by definition are
subject to God and who are not the various gods or goddesses or divinities of other pantheons
without also having at least some token or intellectual acceptance of the existence of God. I
find a belief in God, whether you want to conceive of the God of Abraham or the Nous of Hermēs
Trismegistus or the One of Plato or the philosophical Zeus Pantokrator of other Hellenic philosophers
and theurges, to be more than simply useful in these sorts of rituals. I can’t tell you how to live your
life, nor can I tell you what you ought to believe, but while the wording of the prayers can be changed
in DSIC, the fundamental cosmology it taps into with God, the One, the Summum Bonum at the
top isn’t so flexible. There is a notion of a divine hierarchy and ultimate power upon whom we call,
can enter into, and serve as divine ambassadors of authority and True Will that’s part of Hermetic
practice that I cannot divest my perspectives, practices, or DSIC from. While I don’t doubt that
there are ways around this, I can’t think of any that would make sense to me at the moment, so I
won’t try to come up with them. I will be taking a monistic approach to divinity for the sake of the

156
later DSIC posts; whether you want to interpret this as monotheistic (as in Abrahamic traditions),
monolatric (worshiping only one god without denying the existence of others), or polytheism with
a single central authority (as is common in many of the PGM texts and other Hermetic or proto-
Hermetic works) is up to you. We’ll return to the notion of a de-Christianized DSIC later on in
this series.
Anyway, back to the topic of prayer. Though I don’t think the extreme length of a lunar month
or of 40 days is necessary, I do like Agrippa’s method best here for how we go about the daily
prayer (book IV, chapter 10)180 . Basically, we first set up our temple space, including exorcising
and cleansing it, and set up the altar for the conjuration, but keeping the necessary things covered
with a clean white linen cloth. Every day, we purify ourselves, get changed into our temple garments,
burn sacred lights (which ideally shouldn’t go out during the preparatory period, changing them
out as necessary), burn sacred incense, and pray at the altar as we need. On the day of the ritual,
we cleanse ourselves one last time, anoint ourselves with oil, and pray (which effectively consecrates
us for the ritual, too!), then we uncover the consecrated objects on the altar and perform the
conjuration.
But this all assumes we know how to set up the temple space generally and the altar of conju-
ration specifically, and we haven’t touched on that yet; that will be next.

180 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10

157
5 The Temple
Alright, so! We’ve got all our tools made and prepared; we’ve got our temple garments (or con-
juration costume) ready; we’ve been fasting and abluting and praying like crazy for the sake of
purifying ourselves. What we need to do next—which, if we wanted to go by Agrippa’s recom-
mendation (book IV, chapter 10), we should have taken care of at the start of our purification
process—is to actually set up our temple space and the altar of conjuration that we’ll need. We’ll
assume, for the sake of this post, the ideal situation of having a separate room in our house with
a door that can be shut for privacy to serve as our temple; having a separate room, after all, to
serve as our temple is the ideal for any magician or occultist, but this isn’t strictly necessary for
the sake of our needs, and you can make do all the same. So long as, like Agrippa recommends, the
place in question be “clean, pure, close, quiet, free from all manner of noise, and not subject to any
strangers sight”, then you would be fine. Agrippa does recommend that “this place must first be
exorcised and consecrated”, by which he means (based on the rest of the stuff in Agrippa’s Fourth
Book) we would first sprinkle the place with holy water, suffumigate it with incense (frankincense
is fine, church incense or a blend of frankincense with myrrh and benzoin would be better), and
pray either Psalm 51:7 (as in the Heptameron) or 2 Chronicles 16:14-42 (as per Agrippa).
And yes, I do personally recommend that one should have a separate room set apart for their
magical works; in this, I am entirely in line with Fr. AC when he says in GTSC that “a magical room
should be a priority”. Having a separate room that is undefiled and unprofaned by mundane works
or senseless chatter, or people walking in and out, or people or pets messing with your altars and
shrines and tools really does make a difference. But I also know that not everyone has the space,
means, or ability to set apart a whole separate room for magical works; moreover, I know many
magicians, witches, and occultists who do positively phenomenal work without having a dedicated
temple room, but instead who operate in hallways or kitchens or bedrooms. It’s far more often the
case throughout human history, in every continent and culture and era, that people lived in simple
one- or two-room dwellings, and simply didn’t have the luxury of a fully contained separate room
for magical works like the upper-class echelons of magical society, and it’s not like they weren’t
doing or couldn’t do magic in such circumstances, nor would they willingly let that stop them. If
you have the means to do so, get a separate room for temple and magical stuff; if not, despite that
Fr. AC “cannot condone this method”, I wouldn’t worry too much, since you’re in about 6000 years
and six continents of good company. In the case where you don’t have a separate temple room,
spend a bit of extra time purifying, sanctifying, and arranging everything in the space in which
you’ll do temple stuff; you can still do DSIC-style conjurations and other magical practices all the
same.
What comes to mind when I read this section of Agrippa is the Alchemist’s Laboratory woodcut
from Heinrich Khunrath’s 1595 work Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae, or “Amphitheatre of
Eternal Wisdom” (see figure 62). Note that the alchemist in question has a special oratory set aside
in his laboratory at which he kneels before a table covered with a cloth and a baldachin, the latter
denoting that this is specifically an altar, especially with the sanctuary lamp hanging inside. Note
also how he kneels before an open book with magical circles; this could be an interpretation of a
Liber Spirituum or some other text of devotional and occult focus.
Alternatively, for those who’d prefer a different approach, an oratory of the kind described
in the Sacred Magic of Abramelin could also be used quite nicely. Although that text uses a
completely different approach of conjuring spirits, and that only after one attains contact with

158
Figure 62: “The Alchemist’s Laboratory” from Heinrich Khunrath’s 1595 Amphitheatrum
Sapientiae Aeternae.

159
their Holy Guardian Angel, book II, chapter 11181 describes the nature and construction of such a
place (which far exceeds the demands of what we need for DSIC, but which gives us many other
good ideas to play with if possible):

He who commenceth this operation in solitude can elect a place according unto his
pleasure; where there is a small wood, in the midst of which you shall make a small
altar, and you shall cover the same with a hut (or shelter) of fine branches, so that the
rain may not fall thereon and extinguish the lamp and the censer. Around the altar
at the distance of seven paces you shall prepare a hedge of flowers, plants, and green
shrubs, so that it may divide the entrance [path] into two parts; that is to say, the
interior where the altar and tabernacle will be placed after the manner of a temple; and
the part exterior, which with the rest of the place will be as a portico thereunto.
Now if you commence not this operation in the country, but perform it in a town, or in
some dwelling place, I will show unto ye what shall be necessary herein.
Ye shall choose an apartment which hath a window, joined unto the which shall be an
uncovered terrace (or balcony), and a lodge (or small room or hut) covered with a roof,
but so that there may be on every side windows whence you may be able to see in every
direction, and whence you may enter into the oratory. In the which place [terrace or
balcony] the evil spirits shall be able to appear, since they cannot appear within the
oratory itself. In the which place, beside the oratory towards the quarter of the North,
you shall have a rooted or covered lodge, in the which and from whence one may be
able to see the oratory. I myself also had two large windows made in my oratory, and
at the time of the convocation of the spirits, I used to open them and remove both the
shutters and the door, so that I could easily see on every side and constrain them [the
spirits] to obey me.
The oratory should always be clear and clean swept, and the flooring should be of wood,
of white pine; in fine, this place should be so well and carefully prepared, that one may
judge it to be a place destined unto prayer.
The terrace and the contiguous lodge where we are to invoke the spirits we should cover
with river sand to the depth of two fingers at the least. . .
The chamber [of the oratory itself] should be boarded with pine wood, and a [beautiful]
lamp [of gold or silver] full of oil olive should be suspended therein, the which every time
that ye shall have burned your perfume and finished your orison, ye shall extinguish.
A handsome censer of bronze, or of silver if one hath the means, must be placed upon
the altar, the which should in no wise be removed from its place until the operation be
finished, if one performeth it in a dwelling-house; for in the open country one cannot
do this. Thus in this point as in all the others, we should rule and govern ourselves
according unto the means at our disposal.

Still, as I said above, you don’t need a separate room to act as your temple or oratory. It
would be ideal for any number of reasons, but it’s simply not necessary—arguably ideal, sure, but
not strictly necessary. If you have your own bedroom with a door that can be shut for privacy,
then you’ve already got all you need. If you don’t have even that much, however, then pick a
time when there aren’t people at home for you to do your conjuration. You don’t want to be
181 http://www.esotericarchives.com/abramelin/abramelin.htm#b2chap11

160
bothered or have people walk in on the middle of you standing in a magic circle, after all. Barring
that, find somewhere desolate away from people, foot traffic, and attention where you can work,
or borrow/rent a space somewhere you can do what you need to do. Purify and prepare the space
accordingly (which is something you’d do anyway, even if you had a dedicated temple room!).

5.1 The Altar of Conjuration

Okay, so let’s now say you have your temple room (or at least a temple space within a room) set up.
Now we need to build and set up the altar of conjuration; how should we make that? Honestly, it
doesn’t matter, so long as it can support the implements of DSIC. Fr. AC has a sumptuous Altar of
the Stars182 (see figure 63), described both on his blog and in GTSC, set up with the Grand Seal of
Solomon for the table to be placed upon and circumscribed pentagrams for the candlesticks, edged
with planetary characters and geomantic sigils, with the planetary glyphs on one side of the main
pillar and (what he says but which very readily and apparently aren’t, perhaps inspired instead
from the Complete Book of Magic Science by Hockley?) the “Armadel Olympic spirit sigils” on the
other, zodiacal glyphs on the support pillars, and a circumscribed hexagram on the base under the
main pillar (and thus connecting the table with the Earth itself), but, let’s face it, this is entirely
unnecessary and entirely fanciful. I adore Fr. AC’s inspiration and work here, as ever, but let’s be
honest: nobody needs something like this. Fr. AC, after all, is well-known not just for going “by
the book” when it comes to many grimoires, but also for going well above and beyond them in a
beautiful, and sometimes overmuch, manner.
Fr. AC’s Altar of the Stars falls into the category of what I call “ritual-specific furniture”; as
opposed to ritual-specific tools, which I find reasonable enough to make and keep around (though
I find good reason for making them general or syncretized enough to be general tools if necessary),
ritual-specific furniture is something I internally rebel at and am repulsed by. Even I, with my
large basement temple room with ample space to spare, still like keeping the furniture itself just
plain furniture in case I need to reorganize, disassemble, combine, or the like. Unless you’re going
to make DSIC the One Thing You Do Forever, you don’t need something like this that takes up so
much space to be used for this one ritual. That said, there are a number of good reasons to make
something like Fr. AC’s , but at least as many and as good reasons to not do so.
Instead of something like what Fr. AC has, you could use a Golden Dawn-/Thelema-style double
cube altar183 , or the altar from Abramelin (same selection as before):

The altar should be erected in the midst of the oratory; and if anyone maketh his oratory
in desert places, he should build it of stones which have never been worked or hewn, or
even touched by the hammer. . .
The altar, which should be made of wood, ought to be hollow within after the manner
of a cupboard, wherein you shall keep all the necessary things, such as the two robes,
the crown or mitre, the wand, the holy oils, the girdle or belt, the perfume; and any
other things which may be necessary.

Honestly? You don’t need a specific kind of altar for DSIC. That function is, after all, provided
by the DSIC table (or the Table of Practice) itself; the DSIC table is what makes whatever it’s
sitting on “an altar”, in a sense, but in reality, the DSIC table is the altar. After all, it’s not called
182 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2011/08/planetary-spirit-altar-for-trithemius.html
183 https://thelemicknights.org/constructing-an-altar/

161
Figure 63: Fr. AC’s Altar of the Stars.

162
a “table” for nothing. Yes, the consecrated candles should go next to the DSIC table on either side
and collectively may be thought of as “the altar” as a whole, but it’s really just the DSIC table itself
that’s needed. Because of that, any table, altar, or clean horizontal surface will suffice to work for
the ritual. It should be sturdy enough to not wobble around when things are put on it, when it’s
bumped into, or when people walk with a heavy step around it.
Likewise, the altar should be tall enough to view the crystal on at a comfortable level, whether
or not a pedestal is used—though, if a pedestal is used, the height of the altar upon which the
DSIC table is placed should be considered and adjusted accordingly. However, you may want to go
with a shorter or higher altar depending on whether you prefer to stand during the ritual, sit on
a stool or a chair, or kneel before it. Your specific approach is up to you, but you don’t want to
strain your back or neck because of an awkward height mismatch between your preferred posture
and the crystal on the altar. Be aware that conjurations can go on for quite some time, especially if
you get more advanced in the work and endure multiple hours of ritual work in this way, so you’ll
want something that can be used comfortably for an indefinite period of time.
Fundamentally, since it’s just a piece of supporting non-specific furniture, nothing about the
altar table matters so long as it’s sturdy and tall enough without being too tall; I’ve used IKEA
LACK sidetables184 and NORRÅKER bar tables185 just fine. I do think that the table should be
washed with holy water and suffumigated with incense at minimum before its initial use, like with
the temple garments and other miscellanea according to Agrippa, perhaps anointed with oil on its
corners and legs, perhaps with a bit of extra prayer that it be clean and cleansed and fit for spiritual
work, but that’s about it. Nothing more needs to be done with it to make it ready, since it’s a
relatively minor consideration after all the actual tool making.
That being said, recall something we said earlier when we discussed the process and elements
needed for constructing and consecrating all our DSIC implements about the table, that we could
use either a separate piece of equipment for the table that has the proper design on it, or we could
use an actual table surface instead, something like Fr. AC’s Altar of the Stars, but instead of having
the pentacle from the Veritable Key of Solomon on it in the center, have the actual table design (or
Table of Practice design) permanently emblazoned on it. This is also entirely a legitimate approach,
as DSIC is not clear on whether “the table” refers to an actual table or to a smaller, more moveable
piece of equipment that can be used as a base for the pedestal and/or crystal. I don’t like this
latter approach of using an actual table with the design permanently put onto/into it (again, my
revulsion at having permanently-designated ritual furniture instead of flexible altar tools), but you
can take this approach as well if you want.

5.2 The Altar and the Circle

Now, how do we set up the altar in the temple space? This depends on whether you want to have
your altar against a wall or standing apart from a wall, such that you can walk around it. And this
is where we get into another major divergence in DSIC implementation between the DSIC styles
of Fr. AC and Fr. RO, especially when you factor in the magic circle: should the altar be placed
inside the magic circle or outside it? DSIC doesn’t explicitly say. Fr. Acher from Theomagica186
shows how his temple setup looks like for conjurations, putting his Table of Practice187 on top of a
184 https://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20011408/
185 https://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/40429014/
186 https://theomagica.com/
187 https://theomagica.com/trithemius-table-of-practice

163
double-cube altar in the middle of the magic circle he uses188 (see figure 64).
This is the approach that basically Fr. RO uses, too, and which I’ve used in the past. That said,
now that I think about it. . . I can’t find any specific reference to this approach in Fr. RO’s RWC or
SS; he seems to be as unclear as DSIC is in his written works, but the closest I can find is in his
old Modern Goetic Grimoire that says:

When you have the area and tools prepared, begin by casting a Circle. I stand in front
of the setup [altar with all the items upon it], and pointing the wand to the East, I
turn, tracing out a circle that encompasses the area I will be sitting in. I say “In the
Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I consecrate this ground for our defense.”
It’s a traditional Christian Magician’s method that I lifted from the Art of Drawing
Spirits into Crystals, I believe. It works, and it’s easy. If you’re not a Christian, feel
free to substitute whatever names you are more comfortable using. IAO is particularly
effective.

By Fr. RO saying to “stand in front of the setup, pointing the wand to the East”, this probably
suggests that Fr. RO is directing us to have the altar outside the circle, assuming the altar itself
is placed east of the magician performing the ritual, and by standing “in front of the setup”, he
means to our front. It could mean that “in front of” means on the side opposite the altar, to the
altar’s own East. I actually don’t know, now, where I got my approach of placing the altar inside
the circle with me; it might have been based off Fr. Acher’s designs. However, going through the
old Yahoo! Group messages for Fr. RO’s RWC, it seems that the consensus there, as well, was to
have the altar inside the circle. There’s also the instructions he gives in his old Gates texts from
his Green Work:

Take your wand and trace out a circle on the ground around you while you say: . . .
Then place the incense burner next to your Table of Practice and light the charcoal and
sprinkle incense on it, or light the incense stick and say: . . .

And again from the (astral temple) conjuration done from Lesson 4 of the White Work course:

If you enter through the main doors, you will find your Astral temple all set up. There
will be an altar with the elemental tools and planetary seals and everything you use in
your daily ritual work, only represented more symbolically than the actual items you
use in the “real” world.
Lift the wand and trace out a magic circle around the Temple. Do it the same way in
your vision as you do when you conjured Michael and the Genius.
Return the wand to its proper place, and face the East in your Astral Temple. . .

Between the Gates text (which implies having the altar close enough to reach and manipulate
the incense burner on it), the White Work description (which implies having a circle to cover the
whole astral temple area including the altar, and then putting the wand back on the altar), and
the consensus in the RWC Yahoo! group, plus my own dim recollection of associating this format
with Fr. RO, I think there’s a good chance Fr. RO can be associated with this method. Plus, in my
own recent personal talks with the man himself to confirm, this is in fact his approach: the circle is
traced on the ground with the wand to encompass the whole ritual space, altar and magician both.
188 https://theomagica.com/arbatel_phul

164
Figure 64: Fr. Acher’s temple layout.

165
 It’s important to recognize here what Fr. RO’s specific logic is for placing the altar inside the
magician’s circle. In his style of implementing DSIC, he foregoes any formally-drawn circle of art
like what we discussed before, and merely traces a circle out with the wand as a means of creating
a sacred temple space, which ideally encompasses the whole room used for the ritual but which
may be whittled down to just encompass the immediate ritual space. That’s it; the circle doesn’t
physically exist by being drawn out in ink or chalk or coal, but by the very act of tracing it with
the wand, it spiritually/astrally exists, which is all that matters for the consecration of the temple
space. For Fr. RO, the physical circle is an unnecessary formality, and in fact, even drawing any
circle with the wand is likewise unnecessary as well, because the actual circle that matters for the
protection of the magician is that drawn on the DSIC table itself; the magicians themselves don’t
need their own circle since one is already present. The circle that protects the magician is the circle
on the Table of Practice itself, which serves to contain the spirit from the magician. For the Fr. RO
approach, whether the magician stands inside a circle or whether the spirit does doesn’t matter, so
long as there’s a separation at all, and that separation is provided by the Table of Practice as it is
by its very design.
But, more than that, Fr. RO considers it helpful (especially in the elevation- and initiation-
focused Gates rites in RWC and in SS generally) that we be put as close to the spirit as possible,
in effect helping us to raise our own sphere (itself represented physically/astrally by the circle we
draw) to the level of the planet whose angel we’re conjuring and seeking initiation from. After all,
consider that there’s no magic circle used at all by Agrippa in his primary, prayer-based method
of conjuring good spirits that involves the use of lamens (book IV, chapter 10)189 ; it’s only in his
ecstatic whirling-dervish method that he uses for good spirits, as well as for the conjuration of evil
spirits (book IV, chapter 12)190 , that circles are described for the magician to stand in. Fr. RO
adapts DSIC to forego any Solomonic-style, Heptameron-style, or DSIC-style formal circle of art for
use with conjurations of angelic spirits (or “good spirits” generally) because, according to Agrippa,
they’re simply not needed. Fr. RO does use the circle of art from the Lemegeton Goetia in his
old Modern Goetic Grimoire, and as we discussed above, but that’s also because that text doesn’t
conjure what Agrippa would call “good spirits”.
Anyhow, so much for Fr. RO’s approach for putting the altar inside the circle. Then there’s
Fr. AC who prefers the method of putting the altar outside the circle. Though he is aware of the
inside-the-circle altar approach and “considered this option at length”, which suggests that even
Fr. AC gives this option a good amount of credibility, Fr. AC went with the outside-the-circle
approach based on a specific phrasing of the placement of the incense vessel in the DSIC text:

Then place the vessel for the perfumes between thy circle and the holy table on which
the crystal stands. . .

This could be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. The magician has a circle within which both they and the altar are contained. The magician
stands with the altar in front of them, and the vessel for incense behind the altar but still
within the circle. Alternatively, the vessel may be placed on the altar itself but behind the
crystal.
189 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap10
190 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12

166
 2. The magician has a circle within which they stand, but outside of which stands the altar.
The vessel for incense is placed outside the circle between the circle and the altar that has
the crystal or, alternatively, on the altar itself before the crystal.

It’s that second approach that seems the most clear, even though it goes counter to Agrippa
(book IV, chapter 10) which says to have “a Censer be set on the head of the altar, wherein you
shall kindle the holy fire, and make a perfume every day that you shall pray”, but we know that
DSIC is diverging from Agrippa here on the specifics of the conjuration and is using a combined
good-spirit/bad-spirit approach. Besides, Fr. AC using the altar-outside-the-circle approach ties
in well with other Solomonic literature, especially the famous Lemegeton Goetia, which places the
Triangle of Art outside the circle (see figure 37).
More than that, though, there are two other reasons that I myself find this altar-outside-the-
circle approach to be likely. The first is the phrasing of the circle from the DSIC image: “the magic
Circle of a simple construction in which the operator must stand or sit when he uses the Chrystal”.
Nothing is said about the table or crystal being inside the circle, just the magician. Granted, this
isn’t a strong reason, but it does suggest that the circle is meant to hold the magician and only the
magician, and not the conjuration apparatus of crystal, pedestal, and table.
The other reason, and a far more practical one, that I find that the altar-outside-the-circle
approach is what’s meant. Consider that DSIC instructs us to “take your black ebony wand, with
the gilt characters on it and trace the circle”. DSIC doesn’t tell us which hand, but we can assume
the right hand which is the hand that wears the ring of Solomon (and is the dominant hand for most
people, and in general is historically considered the “correct” hand for works like this). Moreover,
he doesn’t tell us in which direction to draw the circle, whether clockwise or counterclockwise, but
the general practice is to draw circles clockwise, at least when tracing them out. Now, picture these
three scenarios in your mind, dear reader:

1. If we’re drawing a relatively small circle, in which we can stand in one place and simply rotate
in place with the wand on the ground, then we just need to turn our bodies clockwise.
2. If we’re drawing a large circle, we need to walk forward clockwise around the circle with the
wand in our right hand lowered to our left, arm crossing our path, which can be clunky.
3. Alternatively, for a large circle, we need to walk backwards around the circle with the wand
in our right hand lowered down to our right. This is even clunkier and less elegant than the
second.

It’s far easier and more elegant to go with the first option, which assumes that (a) there’s nothing
in the circle with you that would block you from just spinning in place with the wand extended
outwards (b) the circle itself that you’re standing in isn’t very large to begin with. If you’re working
in a large circle, then option #1 won’t be possible no matter what (as the bounds of the circle are
too far away from the center to reach with the wand), and option #3 looks and feels both ridiculous
and awkward. This makes #2 the arguably better choice for large circles, and especially those that
have extra equipment (chairs, tables, supplies, people, etc.) inside them, but it can still be clunky.
With a wand of sufficient length (recommended to be the length from your elbow to the tip of your
middle finger), so long as you bend down a bit, you can make a circle of a pretty good size for
yourself and trace it in the easy option of #1 without introducing the clunkiness of options #2 and
#3. It’s this practical consideration, I think, that also suggests having the altar outside the circle,
since it could not be done if there was anything big in our way.

167
 There is the consideration, of course, of the danger that might be present in placing the altar
containing the locus of manifestation in the circle with us; after all, if the whole purpose of a circle
is to protect ourselves from the danger presented to us by spirits we conjure, why would we conjure
that spirit inside the circle where we’re supposed to be protected by it? This is safe using the DSIC
method, because the DSIC table itself is bounded by a circle of its own. According to the usual rules
of spiritual geometry, just as spirits outside a circle cannot enter into it, spirits inside a circle cannot
leave it. The triangle helps bring them to manifestation as well as binds them (as in Agrippa’s “evil
spirit” methods), and the circle keeps them put; thus, even if the spirits we’re conjuring are inside
the magician’s circle with us, the spirits themselves are in their own inner circle beyond which they
cannot pass. In effect, the table design is its own “magic circle” that keeps the magician protected,
whether or not we use a separate magic circle for ourselves—though, as mentioned before, it would
be good to do so to cut ourselves off from the other influences and powers outside the ritual space
we want to work within.
There’s also the consideration that some people have wondered about that having the altar for
the manifestation of the spirit inside the magic circle weakens the spirit, or stifles the connection,
or otherwise impedes the manifestation of the spirit. I don’t buy it; after all, if that were the case,
then us standing in a circle outside the altar at all would likewise stifle our connection, perception,
or communication with the spirit, whether or not they had their own locus or triangle or table or
crystal. On top of that, if we consider DSIC equipment by the book, the spirits manifest in a crystal
which is bounded by two circles, the first provided by the gold plate with names on the front and
the back, and the second by the circles on the table itself upon which the pedestal stands. I don’t
give this consideration any credence.
Honestly, either approach works, whether you place the altar for the table and crystal inside
the circle with you (as Fr. RO does) or outside the circle (as Fr. AC does). The specific phrasing of
DSIC could be read in a more Agrippa-style way (placing the vessel for incense between the crystal
and the far edge of the circle, at the “head of the altar”) or in a more common-sense, Lemegeton
Goetia way (placing the vessel for incense between you and the crystal in the gap between the circle
and the altar). Either way works. Use what you feel most appropriate doing.

5.3 Orienting the Altar

The reason we needed to figure out how to arrange the altar and the circle in the temple room is
because we need to know how to actually position the altar within the overall temple space itself.
Agrippa says that the “table or altar” should be “set towards the east” (book IV, chapter 10), which
implies that the altar should be placed against the eastern wall of the temple space. However,
if we place the table against the wall, then we can’t really use Fr. RO’s method of including the
altar in the circle because we can’t really reach the bounds of the room behind the altar in that
way. However, I have a way around this, based on something I learned from one of my pagan
friends years back; instead of tracing the circle with the tip of the wand on the ground, one traces
a circle with the tip of the wand pointed upwards at the edges of the room where the walls meet
the ceilings. This is good for consecrating a whole room as a temple space, and can incorporate
an altar positioned against the wall if needed, since one cannot walk or continually trace a circle
behind the altar on the ground in such a case.
However, that method of pointing-up is an inspiration of my own that also goes against the
DSIC instructions of tracing the circle on the ground. In all fairness, it is more likely that the altar
should be placed against a wall, and the easier reading of DSIC suggests the circle for the magician

168
to be placed in front of the altar and not containing it. To use another inspiration of my own, this
time from my espiritismo (Cuban-style Kardeckian spiritism) practice, we place the boveda (altar
for spirit guides and ancestors) against a wall because the wall acts as a natural “gate” through
which spirits can enter. Having the altar positioned in front of a wall would agree with that notion,
as well. Again, it’s not from DSIC nor from any Solomonic text I’ve ever read, but it does make
sense in that regard. However, I don’t think that consideration is necessarily one to have ourselves
beholden to; if you prefer the conjuration altar to be in the middle of the room, it’s not like the
spirits will have any more difficulty reaching the crystal there than if it were a only a few inches
from a wall.
Now, Agrippa says that the altar should be set towards the east; we might interpret this as being
placed against the eastern wall, but if we were to use another interpretation that isn’t unreasonable,
we might also read this as Agrippa saying that the altar should be set such that the objects on
it are arranged towards the east, whether or not the altar is put against a wall. In other words,
we’d arrange the altar so that we’d stand to the west of the altar facing it towards the east. This
is also reasonable, and would allow us to trace a circle around the altar as in Fr. RO’s method.
So, again, there are different approaches here based on how you want to interpret Agrippa, and
either way works, whether you put the altar up against the eastern wall of a room or have it set up
such that you face east when you sit before the altar. This also matches up with pretty standard
Christian practice (pre-Vatican II in the West and Catholic world), where traditionally the whole
church would be oriented towards the East, and the priest would stand on the western side of the
altar facing the East to perform the Eucharist.
But does our ritual direction always have to be east? Agrippa says so, and after all, this is the
direction of the sunrise, and is the direction that churches are supposed to be oriented towards, as
the sunrise is the direction of Light entering the world, which has definite Christological overtones.
But it doesn’t seem like this is the case when implemented by different authors, or at least, not
always. Fr. RO in his old Modern Goetic Grimoire arranges the items on the altar in a way that
doesn’t suggest the altar is set towards the east, but more like to the north or the south (and, I’d
argue, towards the north):
Set up the Table of Practice on a surface you can sit in front of and comfortable gaze into
the scrying medium. Place whatever you will be scrying in the center of the Triangle.
Place the Wand to the East of the Table of Practice, and the Incense to the West.
Yet, in his White Work section quoted above, one should face east in the astral temple, which
suggests that the altar itself is aligned towards the east. However, in another twist, in SS, the
illustration he gives of the altar is very explicitly oriented towards the north, which is why he has
the Table of Practice in SS set up with the archangel Gabriel at the “top” of the triangle, which he
later replaced by Egyn the king of the North. This puts Michael/Oriens at the right of the Table of
Practice to the East, which is where Fr. RO puts the wand at rest on the altar. This, combined with
the odd order of planetary angels around the edge of the table, as noted before when we discussed
the planetary stuff for the DSIC table, ties in with his understanding of the forces associated the
four directions according to Agrippa’s Scale of Four (book II, chapter 7)191 . That Fr. RO faces
north as a rule for his conjurations might be surprising, but consider that his style of implementing
DSIC involves a brief invocation and empowerment taken from the Headless Rite of the Stele of
Jeu the Hieroglyphist (PGM V.96—172)192 , which is a staple of Fr. RO’s general magical practice.
191 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap7
192 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/classical-hermetic-rituals/the-headless-rite/

169
 Planet Agrippa LHJ Heptameron AAA
Saturn North North Southwest North
Jupiter West Southeast South Southwest
Mars East South East South
Sun East East North West/South
Venus West Southwest West North
Mercury North Northwest Southwest Northeast
Moon South West West West

Table 2: Correspondences of the planets to the elements.

The Headless Rite instructs the magician to face north, which is the old direction of eternity and
immortality in old Egyptian belief (and which we discussed in a series of earlier posts193194195 when
we talked about the pole stars in PGM magic). For Fr. RO, this is the default magical direction
above and beyond any other.
But instead of defaulting to either the east or the north, we might consider using the other
directions for specific types of conjuration. Fr. AC in GTSC gives a different direction for each of
the seven planetary angels, but some with directions I can’t figure out where he got them from.
Stunningly, Fr. AC gives a URL to the Archangels and Angels website (AAA)196 in the book for
“the most reliable correspondence charts concerning these angels”, but while the link he gives is
deformed, I was able to find the proper page here. (Note that you would need to use the links at
the top of the page which get you the angels of the planets, not to the planetary links to the bottom
which get you different correspondences). These webpages do include directions for the angels, but
they don’t cite any sources for what they have listed as information, nor do they match up with
any other list I can find.
The Liber Juratus Honorii (LJH) gives a set of directions for the angels of the planets (image
courtesy, of course, of the wonderful Joseph Peterson of Esoteric Archives) (see figure 65). In
addition to that, the Heptameron gives directions (“winds”) for the angels of the air for each of the
seven days of the week (i.e. the seven planets), and then there’s Fr. RO’s method of using the four
cardinal directions for the four elements from Agrippa’s Scale of Four and how the seven planets
are allocated to that (book II, chapter 7). Table 2 gives the different sets of directions I’ve found
for the seven planets and their corresponding angels.
Still, even checking through texts like Stephen Skinner’s Complete Magician’s Tables 197 and
going through all the texts I can think of that might touch on this, I can’t find anything that
matches up with the AAA/GTSC directions. It would honestly shock (and outright appall) me if
Fr. AC just uncritically used what some website says without a grimoiric source to back it up, and
I’m definitely going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this that there is a legitimate grimoiric
or scriptural source for these directional correspondences and accept them as having validity and
not just some new-age woo behind them. Still, if anyone knows where AAA got their source from for
193 https://digitalambler.com/2018/10/06/pole-lords-and-northern-stars-the-ruler-of-the-pole-and-the-charms-of-the-bear/
194 https://digitalambler.com/2018/10/08/pole-lords-and-northern-stars-the-seven-pairs-of-divinities-from-the-mithras-litu
195 https://digitalambler.com/2018/10/10/pole-lords-and-northern-stars-the-names-and-roles-of-the-planets-pole-lords-and-f
196 http://www.archangels-and-angels.com/
197 https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Magicians-Tables-Stephen-Skinner/dp/0738711640

170
Figure 65: Directions for the angels from the Liber Juratus Honorii.

171
the directions for the planetary angels, please do let me know either by email or in the comments,
and I’ll update this bit of the post if and when I find out; I’m stumped and don’t know where this
set of directions came from.
Also, as it turns out, Aaron Leitch wrote a blog post of his own not too long ago about the
planetary rulership of the winds and what directions they should be ascribed to198 , taking a look at
the Heptameron and LJH and correcting them to better fit with astrological and zodiacal paradigms,
which gives us even more food for thought.
In any case and at any rate, in the end, when it comes to setting up the altar, we can pick a
particular direction to have the whole shebang face, such that we face that same direction when
seated in front of the altar:

• Orient the altar to always face east for all spirits (what Agrippa instructs, under a Christian
influence).
• Orient the altar to always face north for all spirits (what Fr. RO instructs, under a Hermetic-
Egyptian influence).
• Orient the altar to face a particular direction associated with the planet of the spirit being
conjured. Which direction you face depends on the direction specified by whatever text or
correspondence system you’re working with.

Honestly, any of these systems work; I can see reasons and rationales for each of them. Use
what’s most comfortable and convenient for you based on your setup and the space you’re working
in. I’ve used East for the vast majority of my conjurations, but I’ve also used West and South when
I had my temple set up with my altar pushed up against the wall to the only direction I had space
for it with equally good results. If you find the direction to face to be important, face the right
direction; if not, don’t worry about it. It can help, to be sure, but for the purposes of DSIC, if you
can’t manage it, don’t sweat it.

5.4 Items on the Altar

Now that we know what direction the altar should face, what needs to go on top of it? Not much,
honestly: the table (if separate from the actual altar table itself) with the pedestal and crystal (or
just the Table of Practice with the crystal, if you’re taking that approach) and the two “holy wax
lights” i.e consecrated candles set in their candlesticks. That’s all that needs to be on the altar, if
you want to take a strict DSIC interpretation, like what Fr. AC describes and has shown before on
his blog199 (see figure 66).
In that approach, in which you’d (most likely) have the magician standing in a circle that does
not include the altar, you’d have the vessel for incense placed (most likely, as Fr. AC says) placed
between you and the crystal in the space between the circle and the altar. Everything else (the
incense itself, wand, ring, lamen, Liber Spirituum, pen, paper, etc.) would be with you inside the
circle. For this reason, Fr. AC recommends you have a little table or shelf with you in the circle to
hold all these items so that they’re ready and within arm’s reach without simply being put on the
floor (see figure 59). Fr. AC also recommends having a stool or chair with you so that you’re not
just standing the entire time, which can double as a place to hold the various DSIC instruments,
too.
198 https://aaronleitch.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/planetary-rulership-of-the-winds/
199 http://bryanashen.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-almost-there-i-promise.html

172
 Figure 66: Fr. AC’s altar setup.

Alternatively, if you take the approach of drawing the circle around the altar, like what Fr. RO
suggests in RWC and SS, then the altar that has the table and crystal and the two candles itself
may serve as a place to put the incense, wand, and the like. A simple layout, not quite what Fr. RO
describes in SS but which builds off of the stuff in RWC, is one that I shared a while back (see first
image in figure 67), using a simple IKEA LACK sidetable as my altar, at which I kneeled facing
the East, with my notebook and extra supplies (just barely visible) placed underneath the altar.
In any case, the altar for conjuration doesn’t need to have a lot of stuff on it, and in general, the
fewer things on it, the better. I would recommend using an otherwise cleared-off space that doesn’t
have any unnecessary tools, talismans, statues, or other items on it that aren’t directly related or
pertinent to the conjuration to be performed.
However, it can sometimes be beneficial to augment the altar a bit by including things resonant
with the planet or the spirit you’re trying to conjure. For instance, using an appropriately-colored
altar cloth, placing images of the seals or characters of the planet or the geomantic sigils associated
with that planet on the altar, surrounding the table with the crystal with candles (smaller than
the “two holy wax lights”) in a number or color appropriate to that planet, flower petals or other
paraphernalia to beautify the altar for the spirit, and the like is often a good choice that I can’t not
recommend. Consider this simple arrangement I used for the angel Tzadqiel of Jupiter, with hand-
drawn images for the geomantic figures Acquisitio and Laetitia as well as the planetary number
square seal for the planet itself, along with my personal planetary talisman of Jupiter (see second
image in figure 67).

173
 (a) Simple.

(b) Customized for Jupiter.

Figure 67: The author’s simple and customized altar setups.

174
5.5 Timing the Ritual and Pre-Ritual Works
Towards the end of the post on purification and preparation, we mentioned how Agrippa says that,
in all the days leading up to the ritual, we should enter into our temple space and pray before the
altar that we’re to perform the conjuration at, keeping the lamen covered with clean, white linen,
which we are to then remove on the day of the ritual itself (book IV, chapter 10). Now, granted
that the DSIC method of conjuration doesn’t match up with this prayer-based theurgic communion
with “good spirits”, we can take this approach as well:

1. On the evening before we begin our preparatory/purification pre-ritual period (however long
that might be according to what you can manage and the severity of the ritual), set up the
altar for conjuration with everything we would need, including the lamen of the spirit to be
conjured. Cover the crystal, pedestal and table (or combined Table of Practice), and lamen
with a veil (ideally of white linen). If desired, the ring and wand may also be covered as well.
On the first day of the preparatory period, light the candles and begin your fast.
2. On each day of the preparatory period as well as the day of the ritual itself, ablute, and pray
at the altar while burning incense. Keep candles lit on the altar this whole time, lighting new
candles from the flames of the old if necessary.
3. On the final day of the preparatory period as well as the day of the ritual itself, keep a stricter
fast than before.
4. On the day of the ritual itself, anoint yourself with holy oil on the forehead and the eyelids,
pray as before, then lift the veil from the altar and perform the conjuration ritual.

Now, that’s the ideal procedure, based on Agrippa’s recommendations from his Fourth Book;
nothing is said of preparation for ritual like this in DSIC proper, but it’s certainly a good practice.
However, if you can’t manage having an altar set up like this throughout the preparatory and ritual
period, then don’t; set up the altar when you need to immediately before the ritual. However, I do
think the preparatory process of fasting, ablution, and prayer should still be done, and although
it’s best if it’s done at the altar of conjuration itself, it doesn’t need to be. If you have another
shrine or prayer table you use for your daily prayers, just use that instead, or just kneel anywhere
is convenient, quiet, and private for you every day and perform your prayers that way. Do what
you can.
Of course, knowing when and how long to engage in our preparatory period necessitates knowing
when the ritual itself will take place. This is the most straightforward thing we’ve talked about
yet: use the planetary hour of the planet associated with the spirit. I’ve already written about
planetary hours before200 , and they’re a staple of Western magic and astrology by this point that
most people are already aware of, and that there are guides and calculators and apps that calculate
them for you for any date and location, so I won’t get into it here. Suffice it here to say that we
need to time the ritual for an appropriate planetary hour. Note that I’m only saying “planetary
hour”, not “planetary hour and day”; you don’t need to wait for an hour of the Moon on Monday
to perform a conjuration of Gabriel of the Moon, because any hour of the Moon on any day of the
week will be enough. It might be better to perform such a conjuration of the lunar angel on both
the hour and the day of the Moon, but it’s not necessary, because the hour is more important than
the day.
200 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/planetary-days-and-hours/

175
 Why do we know that only the hour matters, and not the day? Because the end of DSIC gives
a list of the ruling hours and planets of each hour of each day of the week without specifying the
ruling planet of the day itself. Plus, the DSIC text only talks about the hour itself:

In what time thou wouldest deal with the spirits by the table and crystal, thou must
observe the planetary hour; and whatever planet rules in that hour, the angel governing
the planet thou shalt call in the manner following. . .
(After noticing the exact hour of the day, and what angel rules that hour, thou shalt
say:). . .

More importantly, based on the way DSIC is written, the hour only matters for the actual
conjuration prayer itself (the part starting “In the name of the blessed and holy Trinity, I do
desire thee, thou strong mighty angel. . . ”). This implies that we actually begin our prayers, setup,
circle-tracing, and burning of incense in the hour leading up to the planetary hour we need for
the conjuration, and the exact moment it becomes that planetary hour, we can issue the call for
the appearance of the spirit. I don’t personally like this approach—I prefer to start the very first
prayer of the DSIC ritual within the specific planetary hour we need—but, technically speaking,
the moment that matters for the spirit we want is when we give the precise call to that spirit.
So long as you have the planetary hour correct, no other timing really matters. Of course, that’s
not to say you don’t need to account for other factors that can increase the potency or efficacy of
the ritual: planetary day, lunar phase and speed, retrograde motion of planets, declination of the
Sun, planetary elections, eclipses, stars rising or culminating, and the like may all be taken into
account as valid reasons to time a conjuration specifically to achieve a particular end. Heck, even
taking into account the weather or the specific place you’re performing the conjuration can (and
often will) make a difference. This is especially the case if you’re not just conjuring a spirit for
the sake of communion and communication, but if you’re getting them to do something specific for
you, such as consecrating/enlivening/ensouling a talisman or giving them a charge to take care of a
particular task for you. However, in general, the planetary hour is the only thing you need to have
right; everything else is a bonus, and while those bonuses can often be worth your while, they’re
still just extra.

5.6 The Lamen as an Altar Tool

There is one last consideration, however, based on something we mentioned way back in our discus-
sion on the lamen design. We need to remember that the DSIC text says to put on “the pentacle”,
not “the lamen” or “the holy table” like what the DSIC illustration says. Nobody has ever said
or suggested anything else but that the pentacle refers to anything but the lamen, as even Joseph
Peterson of Esoteric Archives says in his notes on the ritual that “the lamin [sic] is also referred
to in the text as ‘the pentacle” ’. This makes sense, as there’s no other mention of anything else
that could be the lamen in the ritual text itself. However, we know that DSIC builds on earlier
Solomonic literature like the Heptameron, which does clearly have a pentacle, as do other texts such
as the Veritable Key of Solomon or the Lemegeton Goetia (both a hexagram and a pentagram, the
hexagram to be saved until needed if spirits become disobedient and the pentagram to be put on
the reverse side of the seal of the spirit to be conjured), as well as the Secret Grimoire of Turiel
(which, paradoxically, does call it a lamen and has a distinctly different form than the others).
Examples of various pentacles are given in figures 68 and 69.

176
(a) From the Heptameron. (b) From the Veritable Key of Solomon.

(c) From the Secret Grimoire of Turiel.

Figure 68: Pentacles from various grimoires.

177
 (a) Hexagram-based pentacle.

(b) Pentagram-based pentacle.

Figure 69: Pentacles from the Lemegeton Goetia.

178
 It could be that DSIC really isn’t referring to the lamen when it describes the pentacle to be
worn in the ritual, but to an honest-to-God pentacle as used in other Solomonic literature. (Credit
goes to the excellent Reverend Erik Arneson of Arnemancy201 and My Alchemical Bromance202
for raising this possibility to me.) In which case, we would need to get one of those and prepare
it properly, made in a day and hour of Mercury (or those of the Sun or Moon, at least for the
pentagram-formed pentacle of Solomon from the Lemegeton Goetia) with the Moon waxing (or,
according to the Veritable Key of Solomon, when the Moon is at first quarter or last quarter), on
new clean white paper or parchment (or, alternatively, on a square plate of silver, according to the
literal instructions in DSIC itself), sprinkled with holy water and anointed with holy oil. When
putting it on, one may recite the “Benediction of the Lamens” from the Secret Grimoire of Turiel
over it.
But if that’s the case—that we’d need a proper Solomonic pentacle instead of an Agrippan-style
lamen of the spirit to wear—where should the lamen of the spirit go? There are two options that I
can reasonably see. The first is a synthetic approach: we still make and wear the lamen as normal,
but we put the pentagram-formed pentacle of Solomon from the Lemegeton Goetia on the back of
the lamen. The side for the spirit should be made in the day and hour of the planet for that spirit,
but the pentagram on the reverse side should be made in a day and hour of the Sun, both sides
made when the Moon is waxing in the same lunar month. Only once both sides are finished should
the lamen be sprinkled with holy water, anointed, suffumigated, etc. to finish it off before it can
be used in conjuration by being worn.
For the second approach, we make one of the hexagram-formed Solomonic pentacles as desired
above and wear that at the appropriate step, but let’s follow Agrippa’s suggestion instead that
the lamen for the spirit should be placed on the conjuration altar. Where on the conjuration altar
should the lamen be placed? Considering how DSIC diverges from Agrippa on this point, there’s no
one good answer; we could simply place the lamen on the altar in front of the crystal on the altar.
However, something better comes to mind: put the lamen on the table under the crystal. If you’re
using a pedestal, place the lamen for the spirit in the center of the triangle directly underneath
the pedestal base; if you’re not using a pedestal but a Table of Practice instead, simply place the
lamen underneath the crystal. The lamen, then, would not be made to be worn with a hole and
strap put through it, but instead should be sized to fit cleanly within the triangle on the table (or
Table of Practice). This way, the spirit to be conjured would not only be drawn into the crystal
by the prayers and direction of the magician, but drawn further by its own name and seal down
into the crystal in the triangle itself, acting as a symbolic magnet to draw the spirit down into the
crystal from the celestial realms—or, alternatively, to draw it up from the chthonic realms into the
crystal. This is actually a really neat idea, and one that makes total sense, providing a neat blend
of both the usual Solomonic technique and technology of pentacles as well as the Agrippan method
of using the lamen as a focus for conjuration and communion with the spirit themselves.
These options, of course, are nowhere discussed in DSIC, nor have I ever encountered anyone
ever suggesting them. But they are valid alternatives that are still within the realm of reason and
possibility for DSIC implementation, given the ambiguous wording of the ritual text itself and the
historical and literary context from which it arose. It’s something to play with and experiment, to
be sure.

201 https://arnemancy.com/
202 https://myalchemicalbromance.com/

179
6 The Ritual
Just now, we’re finally—finally—getting to the actual ritual portion of DSIC. To be fair, we did
have quite a lot to talk about to get up to this point: what the actual tools and implements
specifically called for by DSIC looked like, how to make them, what other stuff we needed, how to
prepare ourselves, how to set up our temple space, how to set up the altar of conjuration, and how
to time the ritual. With all that out of the way, we’re now actually ready to discuss the actual
ritual format of DSIC. The format given below is my own personal take on the ritual choreography
of DSIC, accounting for magicians, scryers, assistants, and all the things everyone should be doing,
how, and when so as to build up to a harmonized performance of the ritual. Much of this is based
on my own experience, with some of it coming from the directions or witnessed implementations of
similar Solomonic rituals.
So, let’s get into it. By this point, we’ve undertaken our preparatory purification period of
fasting, abluting, and prayer, our altar has been fully set up with all our supplies and tools at hand,
and the awaited day and hour has come. We will assume the following for the purposes of this post:

• The conjuration is to call upon the angel Gabriel of the Moon.

• The conjuration is being performed in an hour of the Moon, with the first prayer begun at
the start of that hour of the Moon.

• The orientation point (the direction the altar is set and to which we face for the conjuration),
based on Agrippa’s correspondences from the Scale of Four, will be to the south.
• The scrying medium to be used is a crystal.
• The ring, lamen, and wand are all initially placed on the altar of conjuration itself.

• The right hand will be used for wearing the ring and using the wand.
• The vessel for incense is placed in a way that may easily be reached from the position of the
magician within arm’s length.
• A book for notes and observations for the conjuration should be present, but kept inside the
circle along with pen and ink.
• We are not using a scryer or any number of other assistants in this conjuration; you, as the
magician will be operating alone (but we will make mention of their roles and functions when
necessary).

• We will be taking a full-on formal approach that covers all the necessary instructions, setups,
procedures, and the like according to DSIC, Agrippa, and Solomonic literature, not skipping
any steps or being casual with any part of the process.

For this post, we’ll be using the actual DSIC text itself and all its Christian prayers, and not
any of the variants floating around out there, with only the spelling, punctuation, and phrasing
updated for modern English without using the old-style thou/thee/thine/thy pronouns. Parts that
may change in reference to the spirit’s name, nature, related godnames, etc. as well as other
changeable aspects of the ritual like the specific scrying medium used, etc. and the like will be
in underlined text. We’ll go over how to adapt the DSIC prayers in non-Christian frameworks

180
in a later post, but for now, let’s stick to the basic DSIC text as written (though updated for
readability). Additionally, any pronouns or other words that need to change based on the gender
and number of people participating in the ritual in the following prayers will be in bold text.
Note that these prayers and instructions are written so as to accommodate any variation on the
following, should you choose to depart from the setups and designs and approaches discussed in
earlier posts:

• Having the circle include the altar or exclude it

• Using an actual table with the table design engraved or written onto it, or a separate piece
of equipment that has the design put on top of another surface
• Having the lamen be a Solomonic pentacle instead of the lamen of the spirit, having the lamen
for the spirit with a Solomonic pentacle on the reverse, or wearing a Solomonic pentacle and
placing the lamen for the spirit underneath the crystal

• Using a pedestal to support the crystal on the table or whether the crystal is placed directly
on a Table of Practice
• Any specific design choices made for the pedestal, table, lamens, or wand
• Placing the vessel for incense on the ground before the altar, off to the side on top of the
altar, or behind the crystal on the altar or on the ground, so long as it is easily accessible and
reachable
• Using a proper Liber Spirituum or a regular notebook

Any variation of these above considerations is acceptable for use in this conjuration ritual, as are
many other variations besides, I’m sure.
One further note before we get on with the ritual itself: it is absolutely best-practice, recom-
mended, suggested, and urged that the magician learn all these prayers by heart. They may read
off of a script if necessary, and having a copy of such a script is good just in case the magician
forgets or slips up on the wording or purpose of something, but it is absolutely the best possible
approach for the magician to learn each of these prayers, steps, and routine by heart, forwards and
backwards. The magician should spend as much time as necessary, especially in the preparatory
period leading up to the ritual, to review, memorize, and practice the ritual script so that they may
execute it easily, correctly, and gracefully without relying on a script.

6.1 Pre-Ritual Setup

Begin by performing your usual devotions, supplications, confessions, and any other prayers you
routinely or habitually use, or those that you have been reciting every day during the preparatory
period; if you’ve been reciting these these while kneeling either in front of the conjuration altar,
then do those here, too. If you’re operating with any assistants, including a scryer, they should
recite their own prayers as well. You, as the magician, should be directly in front of the altar; if
operating with a scryer, they should be on your immediate right in front of the altar, and any other
assistants should be kneeling behind you.
All those present should have abluted themselves with holy water; if this has not yet been
done, do this now. You as the magician and the scryer, if one is present, should anoint themselves

181
on the forehead and eyelids with holy oil at this point; the assistants, if any are present, may
anoint themselves similarly if desired by the magician. Both the ablution and anointing should be
accompanied by appropriate prayers.
Recite any other prayers appropriate to the ritual as desired at this point, including supplications
for enhanced visionary skills, protection in the undertaking, invocations of the planet ruling the
hour, invocations to the angel of the hour or the genius loci of the time and place the ritual is
to be performed, or invocations to one’s holy guardian angel, agathodaimōn, tutelary divinity, or
supernatural assistant at this time.
Once any other preliminary prayers have been recited, if any, stand up straight before the altar.
If you’re operating with a scryer, they should remain kneeling on your right, and any other assistants
present should remain kneeling where they are behind you. At this point, if you’re operating with
any assistants, only you as the magician should be reciting any prayers aloud, with assistants and
scryers staying reverently silent unless directed or bidden to speak.
There should either be self-igniting incense, charcoal, or other fuel present in the incense vessel;
if not yet, place it there now but do not light it.
The two candles on the altar should already have been lit from the preparatory period, but if
not, light them now.
The altar should additionally contain the lamen, ring, wand, and other implements of conjura-
tion, placed conveniently and respectfully on the altar.
If a veil is present on the altar covering the tools and implements of conjuration, remove it now
and put it aside.

6.2 Consecration of the Scryer

If you’re operating alone, you may hold the arms out in the orans gesture (basically up and out to
the sides with the palms facing upwards or forwards towards the altar), or, better, raise up the left
arm in the orans gesture but place the right hand over your heart. If operating with a scryer, place
your right hand either above them or lightly upon their head or back, and your left hand upon your
heart. Recite the following prayer:

O God, You who are the author of all good things! I beseech You, strengthen this
Your poor servant, that he may stand fast without fear through this dealing and work.
I beseech You, o Lord, enlighten the dark understanding of Your creature, that his
spiritual eye may be opened to see and know Your angelic spirits descending here into
this crystal.

Note that the words and pronouns used here to refer to the magician (in underlined text) should
be modified to account for both whether the magician is operating alone or with a scryer and what
the gender of the scryer, if present, or the gender of the magician is, if a scryer is not present. This
prayer should be used primarily to consecrate the scryer and his/her/their “spiritual eye”, but both
the magician and scryer should be similarly consecrated. Consider the above prayer to be for when
the magician operates alone and is male; as an alternative, if the magician operates alone and is
female, use the following:

O God, You who are the author of all good things! I beseech You, strengthen this Your
poor servant, that she may stand fast without fear through this dealing and work.
I beseech You, o Lord, enlighten the dark understanding of Your creature, that her

182
 spiritual eye may be opened to see and know Your angelic spirits descending here into
this crystal.

If the magician operates with a scryer, the following prayer instead should be used:

O God, You who are the author of all good things! I beseech You, strengthen these
Your poor servants, that they may stand fast without fear through this dealing and
work. I beseech You, o Lord, enlighten the dark understanding of Your creatures, that
their spiritual eyes may be opened to see and know Your angelic spirits descending
here into this crystal.

Note that the word “angelic” here may be changed to reflect the nature of the spirit if it’s not
angelic, e.g. “demonic” if a demon, “terrestrial” if a spirit of nature or a genius loci, etc.
Note that the word “crystal” may be changed to reflect the actual scrying medium being used if
not a crystal (mirror, vessel of water, etc.).

6.3 Consecration of the Crystal

Place your right hand upon the surface of the scrying medium (crystal or whatever else is being
used for the ritual) and recite the following prayer:

O inanimate creature of God, be sanctified and consecrated and blessed to this purpose:
that no evil phantasy may appear in you, or, if one should gain ingress into you, that
they be constrained to speak intelligibly, truly, and without the least ambiguity, for
Christ’s sake. Amen.

Remove your right hand from the scrying medium, lift your arms up in the orans gesture, and
recite the next part of the prayer:

As Your servant standing here before You, o Lord, who desires neither evil treasures,
nor injury to his neighbor, nor hurt to any living creature; grant him the power of
descrying those celestial spirits and intelligences that may appear in this crystal, and
whatever good gifts—whether the power of healing infirmities, or of imbibing wisdom,
or discovering any evil likely to afflict any person or family, or any other good gift—You
might be pleased to bestow on me. Enable me, by Your Wisdom and Mercy, to use
whatever I may receive to the honor of Your holy Name. Grant this for the sake of
Christ, your Son. Amen.

Note that the word “crystal” may be changed to reflect the actual scrying medium being used if
not a crystal (mirror, vessel of water, etc.).
Note that the word “celestial” here may be changed to reflect the nature of the spirit if it’s not
celestial, e.g. “angelic” if a true divine archangel above any planet or heaven, “terrestrial” if a spirit
of nature or a genius loci, “chthonic” if a subterrestrial or demonic entity, etc.

6.4 Consecration of the Circle

Put your ring of Solomon on the little finger of your right hand.

183
 Pick up the lamen/pentacle from the altar and wear it around your neck so that the design of
it faces outward and hangs at about mid-chest-height above the sternum or heart.
If there are any extra candles around the scrying medium on the altar to be given as offerings
or decoration, light them now.
Pick up the wand with the right hand, proceed to orientation point of the circle, and place the
point of the wand on the outermost edge of the circle being used for the conjuration. The scryer and
assistants, if any are present, should move to the innermost part of the circle out of your way. Trace
the circle clockwise starting from the orientation point, and while tracing it, recite the following:

In the name of the blessed Trinity, I consecrate this piece of ground for our defense,
so that no evil spirit may have power to break these bounds prescribed here, through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

6.5 Consecration of the Incense

Proceed in front of the altar and light the incense in its vessel. The incense to be used should be
of an appropriate nature for the spirit or to its corresponding planet, or frankincense may be used
generally for all spirits if no specific incense is to be used. If the incense is self-igniting, light that
directly but let the flame burn. If you’re using loose incense, light the charcoal or flame, and let
it complete its process of ignition. Hold the wand in the right hand, point the wand at the flame,
and recite the following:

I conjure you, o creature of fire, by Him who created all things, both in Heaven and Earth
and the Sea and in every other place whatsoever, that you cast away every phantasm
from you, so that no hurt whatsoever shall be done in any thing.

If you’re using self-igniting incense, blow the flame out now; if you’re using loose incense on a
brazier with a flame or charcoal, throw that onto the flame. Once the smoke of the incense begins
to rise, whether the incense is self-igniting or otherwise, hold the wand in the right hand, point the
wand at the incense issuing smoke, and recite the following:

Bless, o Lord, this creature of fire, and sanctify it that it may be blessed, and that your
blessing may fill up the power and virtue of its odors, so that neither the enemy nor any
false imagination may enter into them, through our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Note that, up until this point, only the first-person singular pronouns (I, my, me) are used in
the prayers. After the consecration of incense in the ritual, continue to use the first-person singular
pronouns if you are operating alone, or the first-person plural pronouns (we, us, our) if you are
operating in tandem with a scryer or other assistant. The following prayers after this point assume
that you’re operating alone as the magician.

6.6 Conjuration of the Spirit

At this point, check one last time to confirm that the hour is correct for conjuring the desired
angel, e.g. that it is indeed the hour of the Moon when conjuring Gabriel of the Moon. If so,
continue the operation. If it is too early, spend time in further prayer and meditation until the
proper time arrives without leaving the circle, continuing to keep further incense burning (with or
without reciting the blessing over it, as desired). Otherwise, if it is too late, abort, as the hour

184
is now wrong for the operation unless you can manage to swap out lamens and any other desired
paraphernalia for the spirit in accordance with the proper hour.
If the hour is proper for conjuring the desired spirit, hold the wand in the right hand, point the
wand at the scrying medium, and recite the following:

In the name of the blessed and holy Trinity, I desire you, o strong mighty angel Gabriel,
that if it be the divine Will of Him who is called Tetragrammaton. . . the Holy God, the
Father, that you take upon yourself some shape as best becomes your celestial nature,
and appear to me visibly here in this crystal, and answer my demands in as far as I
shall not transgress the bounds of divine Mercy and Goodness by requesting unlawful
knowledge, but that you graciously show me what things are most profitable for me to
know and do, to the glory and honor of His divine Majesty, He who lives and reigns,
world without end. Amen.
Lord, your Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Make clean my heart within me,
and take not Your holy Spirit from me.
O Lord, by Your Name have I called Gabriel; suffer him to administer unto me, and
that all things may work together for Your honor and glory, to whom with You the Son
and the Holy Spirit be ascribed all might, majesty, and dominion. Amen.

Note that the divine name “Tetragrammaton” is underlined here, as is the ellipsis that follows
it. Any set of divine names, titles, or references of God may be used here, such as the general and
specific names of God as referenced earlier in our discussion on the design of the lamen. Saying
“Tetragrammaton” here is sufficient for all general purposes, but one may use a different name
specific to the spirit being conjured, or a set of names to ensure the compliance and presence of the
spirit. For example one may use any of the appropriate sets of names in table 3 from Agrippa’s
general names and the specific ones (book II, chapter 22)203 , the various qabbalistic names of God
for the corresponding sephiroth204 , or the Islamic names of God associated with the planets from
the Shams al-Ma‘ārif 205 .
Note that the word “celestial” here may be changed to reflect the nature of the spirit if it’s not
celestial, e.g. “angelic” if a true divine archangel above any planet or heaven, “terrestrial” if a spirit
of nature or a genius loci, “chthonic” if a subterrestrial or demonic entity, etc. However, even for
celestial entities such as planetary angels, while “celestial” works for any spirit that is associated
with or drawn from any celestial sphere, this word may be replaced with a more exact adjective,
e.g. “lunar” for Gabriel, “mercurial” for Raphael, “saturnine” for Cassiel, “stellar” for Raziel or the
angel of any zodiac sign or lunar mansion, and so forth.
Note that the word “crystal” may be changed to reflect the actual scrying medium being used if
not a crystal (mirror, vessel of water, etc.).
Note that this conjuration prayers is not necessarily appropriate for all types of spirits. It is,
however, appropriate for most kinds of spirits, especially those of an angelic or celestial nature.
We’ll discuss alternative conjuration prayers for less-than-angelic entities in a future discussion.
Once these prayers of conjuration have been said, await the presence of the spirit you have
called; they should appear more-or-less immediately. If a scryer is present, the spirit may appear
visible to either the magician or the scryer or to both. So long as the spirit is visible to the magician
203 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22
204 http://billheidrick.com/works/mcor.htm
205 https://pentamegistus.blogspot.com/2018/11/sufi-planetary-magic.html

185
 Planet Agrippa Qabbalistic Shams al-Ma‘ārif
El, Elohim, Eloah, Tzabaoth, Elion, Esherehie, Adonai,
General
Yah, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton, Shaddai, Ehevi
al-Bā‘ith (the Raiser)
Yah
Saturn YHVH Elohim as.-S.ādiq (the Truthful)
YHVH
Mawlā al-Mawāli (the Lord of Lords)
Heh
al-Quddūs (the Holy)
Abba
Jupiter El al-Mannān (the Benefactor)
Ehi
ar-Raqı̄b (the Vigilant)
Ab
Yod al-‘Azı̄z (the Powerful)
Mars Gibor Elohim Gibor al-Qāhir (the Victorious)
Heh al-Jabbār (the Strong)
an-Nūr (the Light)
Sun Yod Eloah v’Da‘ath an-Nāfi‘ (the Propitious)
al-Fāt.ir (the Creator)
ar-Rah.ı̄m (the Merciful)
Heh
Venus YHVH Tzabaoth al-H. ayy (the Living)
Aha
al-H. ası̄b (the Reckoner)
Vav
al-Khabı̄r (the All-Aware)
Azbogah
Mercury Elohim Tzabaoth al-Wāsi‘ (the All-Pervading)
Din
al-Ākhir (the Infinite Last)
Doni
Heh al-H. alı̄m (the Forebearing)
Moon Hod Shaddai El H
. ai al-Amān (the Safety)
Elim ar-‘Alı̄m (the All-Knowing)

Table 3: Various divine names associated with the planets.

(if operating alone) or either one or both of the magician or the scryer (if operating with a scryer),
then proceed with the ritual. If desired, you may wish to ask “is there a spirit present here?” softly
but firmly to confirm; if you feel, perceive, or otherwise receive an affirmative signal, proceed on to
the authentication.
If, after a little while, nobody present can see, hear, or in any way sense the presence of the
spirit, repeat these sets of conjuration prayers, and wait again. If, after three times you’ve said these
prayers of conjuration and nobody has gotten any signal nor connection nor sign of the presence of
the spirit, skip ahead to the dismissal and proceed from there.

6.7 Authentication and Oath of the Spirit

Once the presence of a spirit (not necessarily the one you want!) is there, proclaim your thanks for
the presence and the ability to perceive it:

186
 O Lord! I give to You my hearty and sincere thanks for the hearing of my prayer, and
I thank You for having permitted Your spirit Gabriel to appear unto me, whom I, by
Your Mercy, will interrogate to my further instruction, through Christ. Amen.

At this point, the magician is to ask the spirit present four questions of authentication to
ascertain the true character and nature of the spirit that you have conjured. Holding the wand in
the right hand pointed at the scrying medium, ask the following four questions one-by-one:

1. In the name of the holy and undefiled Spirit, the Father, the begotten Son, and Holy Ghost
who proceeds from both, what is your true name?
2. What is your office?
3. What is your true mark that I know you by?
4. What are the times most agreeable to your nature to hold conference with me?

For Gabriel of the Moon, we would expect answers that are more-or-less in accordance with the
following:

1. “My name is Gabriel, the Strength of God.”

2. “I am the angel who presides over the sphere of the Moon in the first heaven, Shamayim.”
3. “This is my seal by which you may know me and call upon me:” (the spirit should visually or
perceptibly reveal the same glyph that is used on the lamen)
4. “The hours in which I may be called are those in which the Moon holds silver sway.”

If the spirit passes those above four questions of authentication, make one final question to confirm
the nature of the spirit and receive their oath:

Do you swear by the blood and righteousness of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you are
truly the spirit as you say you are and that you come to help me as I have called you?

Note that “the spirit” here may be replaced with the specific name of the spirit we expect, e.g.
“. . . that you are truly Gabriel as you say you are”.
If the spirit swears affirmatively, then all the above answers to the questions of authentication
should be written down in your book. Once this is complete, continue on with the ritual.
It is possible that the spirit may give a different answer to #3 (the question about the seal of the
spirit) than what is used on the lamen. If so, then make a note of what that seal is, but immediately
proceed to another question, “Do you also respond to the seal shown here?” while holding up or
pointing towards the lamen. If the spirit responds affirmatively, then they pass that question, and
you may proceed onto question #4.
It is also possible, as Fr. AC says in GTSC, that the spirit may give lengthy, winding, symbolic,
metaphorical, or poetic answers. So long as they say, show, or reveal something that is in agreement
with what you expect to be reasonable, they should be considered acceptable; you may not receive
verbal responses!
We’ll discuss later what to do if the spirit turns out to not be the one called upon by failing the
expected answers to the questions of authentication, or fails to swear to the magician their honest

187
presence and assistance. Regardless, suffice it here to say that, should the spirit present not be the
one desired or fail to swear to the magician, skip ahead to the Dismissal of the Spirit, but if time
and energy permits, instead of continuing to Closing the Ritual, resume the process of conjuration
of the spirit once more, starting with the conjuration; otherwise, proceed to the closing of the ritual
after the dismissal of the spirit.

6.8 Communion with the Spirit

At this point, the spirit you’ve conjured is present and the field is open to communing and com-
municating with them. Chat with them, learn from them, ask for their help, consecrate talismans,
receive initiation or empowerment, and whatever else you wish to do with them at this point. We’ll
go over what you can do here in a later post, but all things done with the spirit should be related or
pertinent to the spirit in some way, with nothing unnecessary discussed or engaged in. If desired,
the wand may be put down now at this point where convenient inside the circle.
If operating with a scryer, the scryer should communicate to the magician and assistants what-
ever it is the spirit says, shows, or does while present. Only the magician should be asking questions
or otherwise directing the spirit; the magician is the one in charge of the ritual, and nothing is to
be done unless they consent to it. If anyone else, including the scryer, has a suggestion or recom-
mendation, they should first respectfully ask the magician whether it may or should be done, and,
should they consent to it, the magician will facilitate it with the spirit, with the scryer giving the
response.
Notes should be taken throughout this process in your book, including of the spirit’s replies,
any visions, any confirmations or denials, and the like. This should be the job of an assistant, if
any are present; otherwise, you as the magician should do this.
If possible, keep incense burning throughout this process, adding more incense as necessary.
Subsequent recitations of the prayer of the Consecration of the Incense may be performed if desired,
but it is not necessary to do so. This should be the job of an assistant, if any are present, but not
the scryer, whose attention should be given to the crystal; otherwise, the magician should do this.
Technically, this may go on for as long as desired or needed, but we’ll take the Arbatel ’s instruc-
tion from aphorism III.21 here: do not detain them past the end of the (planetary) hour in which
you’ve conjured them unless they agree to stay or are otherwise sworn or bound to you. If using
self-igniting incense, so long as the incense isn’t particularly short-lived, this may be used as a sort
of “clock” by which you may measure the length of the conjuration; once the self-igniting incense
burns out, bring the ritual to an end.

6.9 Dismissal of the Spirit

Once you’ve finished communing with the spirit, take up the wand again in the right hand, point
the wand at the scrying medium, and recite the following:

O great and mighty spirit Gabriel, inasmuch as you came in peace and in the name of
the ever-blessed and righteous Trinity, so too in this name you may depart, and return
to me when I call you in His name to whom every knee bows down. Farewell, o Gabriel!
May peace be between us, through our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

The spirit should depart the scrying medium, and their presence should no longer perceptibly
be felt. It is normal for some residual resonance or energy to linger, but the spirit should no longer

188
be actively present in the scrying medium or the ritual area anymore at this point. We will discuss
what to do if they choose to not leave in a later post, but for now, we’ll assume that they leave.

6.10 Closing the Ritual

Take up the wand with the right hand, proceed to orientation point of the circle, and place the
point of the wand on the outermost edge of the circle being used for the conjuration. Any assistants
or scryers should proceed to the innermost part of the circle out of your way. Trace the circle
counterclockwise starting from the orientation point.
Place the wand on the altar as it was at the beginning of the ritual. Remove the lamen and the
ring, then place them back on the altar as they were at the beginning of the ritual.
Proceed directly in front of the altar and kneel before it as you did at the beginning of the ritual;
the scryer and assistants, if any are present, should likewise resume their original place and kneel
as at the beginning of the ritual.
Lift your arms up in the orans gesture, and recite the following:

To God, the Father, the eternal Spirit, the fountain of Light; the Son; and the Holy
Ghost be all honor and glory, world without end. Amen.

The ritual is officially complete. All may arise from kneeling at this point, or continue in further
prayer and meditation if desired.

6.11 Post-Ritual Breakdown

The two consecrated candles on the altar may be left to burn out completely or they may be snuffed
out with a candle-snuffer; any other candles burnt to augment the conjuration should be left to
burn out completely, as should the incense.
Perform any final cleanup, notetaking, and other finishing tasks as necessary, including disas-
sembling the altar of conjuration if desired, then leave the temple space when all else has been
finished.
If you operated alone during the ritual, spend some time in intellectual contemplation and review
of the communion and conversation with the spirit in silence, including reviewing any notes that
were written down earlier. If you operated with other people, such as a scryer or assistants, engage
in conversation with them about the ritual in a similar way. Other notes may be taken at this time
as well, as desired. It is good to do this while getting a bite to eat and something to drink to help
the body relax and ground down at this time.

189
7 What to Do Now that the Spirit is Here
At this point, dear reader, you might be wondering “what the hell does this guy have left to talk
about?” I mean, after so much writing, you’d think I’d be running out of steam. And you would
be wrong. Yes, it is true that we’ve talked about a lot—far more, really, than I ever anticipated
talking about. We’ve discussed the designs of all the implements needed for the DSIC ritual, how to
make them regarding both physical components and spiritual influences, how to set up our temple
and the altar, and we (finally) got to the actual ritual of DSIC, outlining all the individual steps,
motions, gestures, and prayers to make in the course of the conjuration ritual attributed to the
good Abbot Johannes Trithemius of Spanheim. So, really, what else is there to talk about?
What we talk about next is the stuff that DSIC doesn’t talk about but necessitates thinking
about. It’s true that you could, dear reader, stop reading this series of posts at the last one, make
all your tools to spec (or as close as an incomplete, mishmash text like DSIC can permit such specs),
and be on your merry way with conjuration. And many people have done just that with Fr. RO’s
RWC and SS as well as Fr. AC’s GTSC, and yet, I still get questions on “what do I do next?”.
There are a number of gaps in DSIC, and what we’ll talk about in these last few posts is the stuff
that DSIC wouldn’t, couldn’t, or just didn’t discuss.
First up? What to actually do with a spirit once you’ve conjured it. Let’s say you’ve gotten
all your tools together, put your temple and altar together, and launched into a conjuration of a
spirit. Surprise surprise, the spirit shows up, and it passes your questions of authentication and
gives its oath to you. In the time you have allotted with the spirit. . . what do you even do? Well,
I’m not you, dear reader, so I can’t tell you what to do. You obviously must have had some reason
to go through the trouble of putting everything together, memorizing all those prayers, and saying
them at the right time so as to bother one of the spiritual executives of the corporation that is the
cosmos to show up to your humble rock-based abode. I’m not here to tell you what to do, nor how
to go about it; I presume, if you’ve gotten this far, that you generally have a notion of what you’re
doing. Unless I’m your official mentor or godparent, I won’t assume that I can take the role of one,
and so I can’t tell you what to do.
But I can tell you what you could do.

7.1 Advice and Protocol

However, before we get there, let’s start off with some general advice first on conjurations generally:

Be polite. You’re engaging with some of the highest, biggest, strongest, oldest, smartest powers
in the cosmos, entities that have existed long before the first human ever was and will be long after
the last human ceases to be. They see more, know more, do more, and are more than you know or
could ever possibly know. The vast majority of these entities we typically conjure are not human,
nor have ever been human, and are thus fundamentally of a different essence and nature than you
have any frame of reference for. It’s a lot like Wittgenstein once said “If a lion could speak, we
couldn’t understand him”—and many of these entities have many more and much sharper teeth
than any lion. Be humble, polite, grateful, reverent, honest, and straightforward. Don’t try to
be sly, cunning, wicked, deceptive, or trifling. You have the full attention of a massive shard of
Divinity Itself, present literally right before you and with you; act accordingly. They came because
you are a child of Divinity yourself, and if you carry yourself with dignity and authority that is
your birthright as a human being, they will be willing to work with you and not against you, but

190
do not think to abuse or misuse them. And if you haven’t read my two posts on what to do when
God says “no”, then read them here206 and here207 before continuing.

Always take notes. If you can, have someone scribe for you; otherwise, once the angel is present
and there’s no need to be intimidating or controlling of the situation, put down the wand and pick
up the pen. Record everything, the questions you ask as well as the answers they give, whether in
the form of words or images or sensations. Write down not just the date and circumstances and
spirit of conjuration, but write down whatever they tell you or reveal to you. If you can, go into
the conjuration with a list of questions with blank spaces ready to go to fill in. If your writing is
shit, bring a laptop to type notes on, or get a voice recorder and record yourself—and be sure that
you say aloud whatever it is you say, and repeat whatever it is they tell you. Communication works
best when you actually communicate: let breath and voice actually cross your lips. The spirits,
after all, are truly, physically present with you in one sense or another; treat communication with
them as you would someone across a (very formal) dinner table from you.

Before you close out the conjuration, ask a simple question: “is there anything you
would have me know, learn, or do at this point in time and at this point in my life?”
I find this to be an extraordinarily helpful thing to be the last thing you do, at least when it comes
to the cosmic entities (like planetary or elemental angels). It’s often the case that there are many
things that we want to know, do, or become, but we, as finite, ignorant, dim, short-sighted mortals
don’t have the foresight or mental acuity to think of or be aware of. By giving the spirit we conjure
an open-ended question like this, we open the field up to them and allow them, in their wisdom
and awareness that far exceeds our own, to fill in ours when we don’t know what needs filling in.
Further, based on that, whatever it is they tell you (or not) can open things up for other questions
or requests that you might make of them that you weren’t aware you should have asked before this
point, or it can give you things to work on and call upon them for when you need their help outside
of conjuration.

By receiving their oath at the beginning of the conjuration, whether or not it’s your
first time conjuring into them, you have effectively received their help for good. This
is especially the case after the end of the first conjuration, for when you give them the license to
depart, you also get their oath to return to you “when [you] call [them] in His name to whom every
knee bows down”—and that’s whether or not you call them in the context of a conjuration. Just
as you shouldn’t call them down in vain or discuss things vainly with them while they’re present
with you, do not call them in vain, even as a joke from then on. They will come when you call
them. If the bond you form is strong enough, dedicated enough, and sincere enough, then you may
only ever need to do one formal conjuration of them, with everything else being relatively informal
without nearly as much rigamarole or hullabaloo—but confirm this with the spirits before they go
to make sure that they agree to that, or whether they prefer you to call on them formally.

Sometimes, the spirits we call upon by name and seal might not like that specific name
and seal that you use. Sometimes the spirit might find the names and seals in the grimoires to
be distasteful or inappropriate, sometimes they just don’t like them, sometimes they see that you
206 https://digitalambler.com/2019/04/15/when-god-says-no-on-god-and-the-angels/
207 https://digitalambler.com/2019/04/16/when-god-says-no-on-true-will-and-the-will-of-god/

191
have a specific need for a specific name and seal in your own specific lifetime. If a spirit gives you a
different name or seal to use, use it from then on; that’s your own personal connection to the spirit,
and not to be shared with others. Use what they give you from the moment they give it to you, or
as directed to use it by them. If you want, clarify with the spirit why you’re receiving this specific
name and seal, what the limitations of its use are (time? function? place?) and what purpose it
would serve for you instead of the name and seal that you were already using. Afterwards, make a
new lamen with that name and seal, using the usual magical timing and consecration methods as
desired.

Sometimes a spirit doesn’t have a published seal known ahead of time that we can
use. For instance, when conjuring the four elemental angels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel,
we need to remember that, even though the names might be the same for some of these spirits,
their office is not (e.g. Michael of the Sun vs. Michael of Fire), and for all intents and purposes,
these should be treated as different spirits (even if they are fundamentally “the same” spirit). If
you don’t have a seal for the spirit, use a sigil instead; use the Rose Cross sigil generator, use a
planetary magic number square sigilization method, use the AIQ BKR method, or just combine the
individual letters of a name into a single glyph. Something is better than nothing, and the spirit
will still respond to it—but they will give you something that they’ll respond to better, if you but
ask. If you can’t figure out how to make a sigil out of a name, you can go in with a lamen that just
has a name on it, but it’s better to go in with something rather than nothing.

Don’t stress about the conjuration. You don’t need to force yourself to imagine the presence
of a spirit; if it’s there, it’ll make itself known. If you have a hard time perceiving the spirit (and
it always helps to practice spiritual perception through psychometry training)208 , ask for its help
in opening up your eyes, ears, mind, and all your senses of perception to better attune yourself to
it and it to you. In doing so, you’ll be able to bring yourself more into alignment with the spirit,
“get” it better, and receive whatever you can from it with better grace and dignity and ability to
process it all. Don’t worry if you can’t get a strong connection yet; keep trying, and you’ll build
that power up over time. You don’t need to aim for full-on physical manifestation on your first go;
whether or not that’s an aim of yours, we all need to start somewhere. And learn how to interpret
information in any sense you get: if all you feel are changes in pressure, changes in temperature,
sensations of motion, or weird tastes on the tongue, go with it and “translate” it as best you can
into a sensation or perception that you can actually plumb. Learn how to speak the language of
the spirits themselves using whatever tongue you have—whether or not it’s the one in your mouth.

Spend time afterwards integrating the experiences of the conjuration. There are times
when interacting with a spirit—learning from them, receiving initiations from them, bringing their
presence and blessing into our lives, and so on—can induce nontrivial changes in our own human
sphere of existence and reality, and it can be drastic at times. Spend at least a few days (a week,
a month even) after the conjuration noting what’s different, if anything, and certain patterns that
may arise that weren’t there before. Take care of yourself, because some of these changes can be
harsh on you, ranging from problems with your health, romance, interpersonal communication,
or emotional stability. It’ll level out over time, but just be aware that some of these interactions
can linger. And take care to cleanse yourself of negative influences, but at the same time, you
208 https://digitalambler.com/2018/05/05/on-psychometry-a-most-necessary-beginner-practice/

192
don’t necessarily want to banish all the influences together, lest you throw the baby out with the
bathwater and undo the work that you need to be doing!

7.2 Suggestions and Guidance

Beyond those bits of advice, the rest is just learning how to handle conjurations and interactions
with spirit. No two spirits are the same, and even spirits from the same sphere may interact with
you in wildly different ways according to their specific nature, desires, function, goals, and needs.
It helps to study as much about the sphere you’re about to interact with generally and the spirit
you’re about to conjure generally (if at all possible) in the days leading up to the conjuration so
as to have at least a surface-level knowledge about the spirit, just the same way as you’d do well
to learn about a company’s business audience, habits, and important executive names before you
go into a job interview with them. Agrippa’s Scales tables (book II, chapter 4209 through chapter
14210 ) are fantastic for getting a start on this.
Now, what about the stuff that you can do with spirits in conjurations? Honestly, the sky’s
(quite literally) the limit; unless you start asking for unreasonable or ungrantable things or unless
you start to push up against the natures of the spirits you’re working with, there’s really nothing
you can’t do with the spirit. As for my suggestions, well, they’re only just suggestions; this should
not be interpreted to be a sort of guide, course outline, model of progression, or anything of the
sort, but just things I’ve done, have read about being done, or have seen or heard done with spirits
in conjuration of this sort. Some of this stuff may apply to you, some of it may not, so take it all
with a grain of salt, but don’t be afraid to experiment, learn, and grow from your conjurations. See
what’s possible, and then see what’s possible because of that.

Soak in the energy of the sphere of the spirit. Assuming you’ve called on a presiding,
governing, or otherwise high-up ruling spirit of a particular sphere or planet (or, even if it’s just
a minor or subordinate spirit, the realm of that particular spirit as a fragment of a larger whole),
this is a fantastic time to just sit and soak in the energies of that sphere. By praising, lauding,
and greeting the forces of that sphere, we enter into its good graces and can passively soak up the
blessings of it, leeching out what ails us and encouraging our growth within it. Ask the spirit to
fill the temple space with the light, winds, sounds, songs, smells, airs, and presence of that sphere;
sing the Orphic Hymns for that planet, pour out a libation (wine, whiskey, clean water, etc.), burn
special incense for that sphere (whether the same incense you chose for that conjuration or above
and beyond what you used), play music that can be associated with that sphere (Fr. RO is fond of
using Gustav Holst’s “The Planets” series of orchestral pieces), and otherwise just get to feel that
planetary force in abundance right then and there in the conjuration. This can be thought of like
a “sound bath” or “spiritual wash of the soul”, and is often a good thing to do if we’re calling upon
that sphere for the first time.

Receive induction. Previously I would have called this “initiation”, but that word can be con-
fusing and can lead to some people getting the wrong idea about what’s going on, so rather, I’ll
call this “induction”, being “led into” something by the spirit, as well as having the spirit “induce”
changes in you. This is effectively what Fr. RO does in his old Gates texts as part of the Green
Work portion of the RWC, and also what he teaches in SS. On top of just soaking in the blessing
209 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap4
210 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap14

193
of that sphere as a whole, we ask the spirit to “open the gate” to lead us deeper into the mysteries
and realm of that sphere, letting us enter into the power of that sphere so that the power of that
sphere can enter into us. By doing this, we receive a type of “spiritual initiation” (again, hesitant to
use that phrase) directly from the spirit themselves, setting us on a path to allow us induce more
of that planetary power in ourselves and allowing us to manipulate it within and without ourselves.
Combined with what’s essentially pathworking—consider this basically being taken by the hand to
be led into the crystal where the spirit itself is—we scry not just the spirit from our perspective as
a magician in a circle, but we scry the whole realm of the spirit from the perspective as a wanderer
in a new land, and in effect, we essentially flip the conjuration on its head: we called down the
spirit into the crystal from its realm, but we let the spirit take us through the crystal back into
their realm. In this case, the crystal serves as the physical gate, and the spirit opens the spiritual
gate for us.

Make requests. Requesting that the gate of the sphere be opened for us is just one type of many,
many possible things that you can request from spirits, and let’s be honest: we call on spirits to get
help in our lives with this or with that. This is pretty straightforward: when a spirit is down whom
you know you want or need help from, ask them for what you need, and specify what it is you need
done, how you would want it done, under what conditions, and so forth. Depending on the nature
of the spirit and how you want to go about it, you probably won’t be able to issue commands,
but you can make requests. When you do so, be specific with what you’re asking for, and always
expect that there’ll be something on your end you’ll need to fulfill as well. If they say “no”, ask
why; if they need something from you, see if it’s reasonable and in line with what you’re asking.
Sometimes you’ll need to offer payment of some sort, sometimes you’ll need to keep a promise or
maintain a particular style of living, sometimes you won’t need to do anything at all.

Consecrate talismans. You’re already likely working within a planetary hour (and, just as likely,
within a planetary day) for a ritual, so why not use it for all possible purposes and take home a
souvenir after the conjuration? With the spirit called down, direct them to consecrate a particular
talisman for you. Work out with the spirit the purpose of the talisman, how it’ll be used, how it
should be treated or maintained, what needs to be done with it, how it should be decommissioned
and under what circumstances, and, if all is worked out, get to it: present the talisman, give the
spirit the charge , sprinkle it with holy water, anoint it with a relevant oil, and suffumigate it with
incense, letting the spirit fill it with whatever power it needs. Of course, when it comes to planetary
angels, this is often best done with the help of the planetary intelligence and spirit as well, and if
they’re not present for the consecration, then we’d need some way to get them present, which leads
to. . .

Chained summoning. While we discussed how to fill in lamens for getting a number of specific
spirits under their president or governor or ruler earlier, that’s not the only way to get subordinate
spirits present to the circle. So long as the primary spirit you’ve conjured has the authority to do
so, once they’re present, ask them to bring other spirits as you might need. What we’re doing is
plying the hierarchy of spirits to bring along other spirits as we need to the conjuration so that
we have as much support as we might need for the purpose of the conjuration. This is where
knowing your spirits and godnames from Agrippa and other qabbalistic references can help, and
helps give a well-rounded power to your consecrations and works with spirits, because each spirit
has a particular benefit or function to play. For instance, in the planetary framework I work within,

194
while you can do what you need to consecrate a Saturn talisman with just the presiding angel of a
planet (Tzaphqiel of Saturn), it also immensely helps to have the intelligence there (Agiel of Saturn)
in order to properly guide and instruct/construct/form the channels by which the talisman can be
spiritually built up, as well as the spirit there (Zazel of Saturn) to actually provide the raw power
and force of that planet. Conceiving of the spirit as being under the authority and guidance of the
intelligence, and the intelligence under the angel, and the angel under God, as well as understanding
that spirits we conjure aren’t necessarily bound by the laws of locality like we are (i.e. they can
be in multiple places at once), we can issue a series of requests within a hierarchical framework
to bring the whole party together without necessarily letting the spirits depart until we give the
license to depart at the end of the conjuration (just remember to give the license to depart to all
the spirits you bring together in the conjuration in this manner):
In the name of God, YHVH Elohim, o Tzaphqiel, bring forth Agiel, the intelligence of
Saturn, and Zazel, the spirit of Saturn, here to this place and now at this time!
In the name of YHVH Elohim and by the authority of Tzaphiel, the angel of Saturn
who presides over you, do I call upon you, Agiel, o intelligence of Saturn, to be with
me, here at this place and now at this time!
In the name of YHVH Elohim and by the authority of Tzaphqiel, the angel of Saturn,
and the guidance of Agiel, the intelligence of Saturn, who preside over you, do I call
upon you, Zazel, o spirit of Saturn, to be with me, here at this place and now at this
time!

Ask for a familiar spirit to be assigned to you from that sphere. While we can simply
work with the big names from the grimoires—the planetary angels and intelligences and spirits,
the elemental angels and the kings and the princes, and so on and so forth—there are an uncount-
ably infinite number of spirits out there, and we can learn more about some of them by asking
to be put into contact with them. Something I’ve found to be extremely worthwhile is, when you
have the presiding/governing/ruling spirit of a particular sphere called down, is to ask the presid-
ing/governing/ruling spirit of a sphere to go forth and bring forward a lesser, subordinate spirit
from that sphere to act as your own personal familiar of that sphere, a spirit who can help, assist,
guide, and empower you in the ways that are specifically proper and best for you in your life for the
work you need to do. Issue a chained summoning request as above, and when that familiar spirit
is presented to you, get to know them as you would any other spirit: get their name, get their seal,
get their image, get their oath to come when you call, get to know when you can call upon them
(making it more convenient for you than otherwise), and get to know them, what they like, what
they can do, what their functions and purposes are, and the like.

Receive feedback. As finite, short-sighted, and mortal as we are, we are not always the best
judges of ourselves when it comes to our own spiritual development—but the spirits certainly can
be. So long as the spirit is of a high-enough station and elevation to do so, ask them about your
place in their sphere (because, even if we’re primarily earth-bound in this material plane of reality,
we all have some presence and share in all the spheres above us): ask about how the force of that
sphere is working within you, how well you’re integrating it in you life, what your blockages are,
what your problems are, what you’re doing well with, what you’re not doing poorly with. Get
their guidance on how you can improve yourself in your life and in your world, and how you can
better facilitate the powers of that sphere in your own life and in the world generally. Listen to

195
the spirits. Get their guidance and feedback, get their support, and see what you can do both
with them there present in the conjuration as well as outside the conjuration in your magical and
spiritual life generally to improve on what needs improving, further what needs furthering, and
maintaining what needs maintaining.
Now, all the ideas above are just that, ideas and suggestions for you to consider when you
engage in conjuration of many of these entities that many people use with DSIC, whether you take
Fr. RO’s approach through RWC or SS, Fr. AC’s approach through GTSC, or some other approach
entirely. I don’t mean to imply that the above is all you can do, and far from it! What you do in
conjurations of spirits is up to you, what you need out of the conjuration, and what you want out
of the spirits.

196
8 What to Do for Non-Angelic Spirits
The conjuration ritual of DSIC, it would seem, has been used chiefly for conjuring and working with
angelic spirits, specifically those of the seven planets (regardless of what names you call them by
depending on the specific source you’re working from). This is both how Fr. RO uses his version of
DSIC in the Gates texts of the Green Work section of RWC as well as in the subsequent SS book he
put out, and is also the focus of GTSC by Fr. AC. The DSIC text itself suggests that working with
the planetary angels is its primary purpose, as it gives a list of planetary hours and their associated
seven planetary angels at the end, and the ritual script of DSIC is written to use Michael of the
Sun as the main example, using Michael’s name in the conjuration as well as a lamen of Michael
of the Sun and a magic circle to be used with the seal of Michael of the Sun. It also says, towards
the start of the ritual text (my own emphasis in bold text):

And forasmuch as thy servant here standing before thee, oh, Lord! desires neither evil
treasures, nor injury to his neighbour, nor hurt to any living creature, grant him the
power of descrying those celestial spirits or intelligences, that may appear in
this crystal. . .
In what time thou wouldest deal with the spirits by the table and crystal, thou must ob-
serve the planetary hour; and whatever planet rules in that hour, the angel governing
the planet thou shalt call in the manner following. . .
. . . for all celestial operations, the more pure and unmixed they are, the more
they are agreable to the celestial spirits. . .

Yet, the ritual text also suggests that spirits other than angels can be called upon in the ritual,
too (again, my emphasis in bold text):

. . . and thou, oh inanimate creature of God, be sanctified and consecrated, and blessed
to this purpose, that no evil phantasy may appear in thee; or, if they do gain
ingress into this creature, they may be constrained to speak intelligibly, and truly, and
without the least ambiguity, for Christ’s sake. . .
. . . that forthwith thou cast away every phantasm from thee, that no hurt whatsoever
shall be done in any thing. . .
In the name of the blessed Trinity, I consecrate this piece of ground for our defence; so
that no evil spirit may have power to break these bounds prescribed here. . .
Now, this being done in the order prescribed, take out thy little book, which must be
made about seven inches long, of pure white virgin vellum or paper, likewise pen and
ink must be ready to write down the name, character, and office, likewise the seal or
image of whatever spirit may appear. . .
Now the most pure and simple way of calling the spirits or spirit is by a short oration
to the spirit himself. . .
“In the name of the blessed and holy Trinity, I do desire thee, thou strong mighty angel,
Michael, [Or any other angel or spirit] . . .

There’s also the fact that the text consistently refers to the thing being conjured is almost always
“spirit”, far more rarely “angel”, even in the title of the text itself (“The Art of Drawing Spirits Into

197
Crystals”). It is true that, yes, angels are definitely a kind of spirit, and the words “spirit” and
“angel” can be used interchangeably when discussing an angelic text—but not all spirits are angels.
And although some of the references to “evil phantasms” or “evil spirits” above should properly
be considered exorcisms to ensure the purity, sanctity, and protection of both the implements,
elements, and participants in the ritual, it does suggest that DSIC can flirt more with “evil spirits”
(as Agrippa might call them in his Fourth Book, as opposed to “good spirits” like angels or other
celestial entities) than might be readily apparent.
The usual approach to using DSIC is to work with angels—usually the planetary angels from
Agrippa or the Heptameron, as Fr. RO and Fr. AC do, but even including the Olympic Spirits from
the Arbatel as I’ve often seen done, especially but not only by Fr. Acher in his Arbatel essays on
Theomagica211 . In this sense, DSIC can be considered a way to flesh out Agrippa’s conjuration
method of “good spirits” (book IV, chapter 10), but DSIC doesn’t strictly implement what Agrippa
says there. Instead, DSIC seems to be an amalgam of Agrippa’s methods of working with both
“good spirits” as well as “evil spirits” (book IV, chapters 12 and following), and in that light, further
fleshes out what Agrippa says with the techniques and tools of the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano.
It’s also interesting to note that, in the 1655 English translation of the Heptameron by Robert
Turner, there’s an introduction to this entry that was included with Agrippa’s Fourth Book that
says that the Heptameron was specifically included to flesh out what Agrippa had written about
such conjurations:

In the former book, which is the fourth book of Agrippa, it is sufficiently spoken con-
cerning Magical Ceremonies, and Initiations.
But because he seems to have written to the learned and well-experienced in this art, be-
cause he does not specially treat of the Ceremonies but rather speaks of them in general,
it was therefore thought good to add hereunto the Magical Elements of Peter de Abano:
that those who are hitherto ignorant and have not tasted of Magical Superstitions may
have them in readiness [and] how they may exercise themselves therein. . .

As we’ve shown at multiple points throughout this series of posts, DSIC is very much a com-
bination of theurgic invocation and communion with “good spirits” as much as it is a Solomonic
conjuration of “evil spirits”. In that light, DSIC should be able to work with “evil spirits”—demons
from various goetic texts, non-angelic entities like genii locorum, and the like—as much as it works
with “good spirits”. And there’s nothing, strictly speaking, that says you can’t do just that, or that
DSIC as written would be insufficient for such works with them. After all, we pointed out in the
actual ritual script that some descriptors, adjectives, keywords, and names can be changed to suit
not just any angel of any planetary or stellar sphere, but to chthonic, terrestrial, or other spirits,
as well. However, as DSIC says, “the most pure and simple way of calling the spirits or spirit is by
a short oration to the spirit himself”, and though the prayer used in the Conjuration of the Spirit
from DSIC is written in a sufficiently general way to be used for all spirits, we can replace this with
prayers that are specifically geared to specific spirits.
First, a note about those prayers for conjuration. The DSIC text uses three prayers to conjure
a spirit, which we had as follows from our script writeup:

In the name of the blessed and holy Trinity, I desire you, o strong mighty angel Gabriel,
that if it be the divine Will of Him who is called Tetragrammaton . . . the Holy God, the
211 https://theomagica.com/the-arbatel-experience

198
 Father, that you take upon yourself some shape as best becomes your celestial nature,
and appear to me visibly here in this crystal, and answer my demands in as far as I
shall not transgress the bounds of divine Mercy and Goodness by requesting unlawful
knowledge, but that you graciously show me what things are most profitable for me to
know and do, to the glory and honor of His divine Majesty, He who lives and reigns,
world without end. Amen.
Lord, your Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Make clean my heart within me,
and take not Your holy Spirit from me.
O Lord, by Your Name have I called Gabriel; suffer him to administer unto me, and
that all things may work together for Your honor and glory, to whom with You the Son
and the Holy Spirit be ascribed all might, majesty, and dominion. Amen.

Fr. AC in GTSC breaks these out into three separate prayers, with only the first one required
no matter what, the second one to be used if the spirit does not immediately show after saying the
first, and the third one to be used if the spirit still does not show up after saying the second. These
effectively “spur the spirit to arrive to your altar quicker”, and does fall in line with many Solomonic
texts that give subsequent calls for the spirit to arrive if they delay, tarry, or otherwise don’t show
up at first. I can see Fr. AC’s logic in separating these prayers out this way, but I prefer to treat
them all as a single “unit” of prayer. The main thing that keeps me from agreeing with Fr. AC’s
approach of these prayers as subsequent “spurs” to the spirit is that, typically, Solomonic rituals
typically increase these subsequent prayers with stronger language, threats, intimidation, and acts
such as revealing pentacles, holding knives in fire, and the like. In other words, we first ask nicely,
but we drop niceness in favor of business, cordial then serious then mafia-style rough, as we need
to make sure we get our way. DSIC does nothing of the sort here, and I don’t read or interpret
that last part of the conjuration prayer as any more threatening or intimidating than the first. I
recommend all three be read as a unit.

8.1 Genii Natorum

So, let’s say we want to vary the prayer for specific spirits. Let’s start with one that’s dear to my
heart: the natal genius. This is a spirit—generally considered angelic and typically of a solar order
given its association with one’s life though not necessarily solar in and of itself—who I consider
to be the spirit that represents the “idea” of our incarnation in the world, the angel (or a spirit
close enough to one) into whose lap we fall into as their ward in the process of our birth. Agrippa
describes this as one entity of the “threefold keeper of man” (book III, chapter 22)212 , and whose
name can be derived in any number of ways, though I prefer the method described later on (book
III, chapter 26)213 of deriving the name from the letters associated with the degrees of the Sun,
Moon, Ascendant, Part of Fortune, and Prenatal Syzygy points of one’s natal horoscope. Contact
with this spirit is great for learning more about one’s proper place and work in life, and though I
don’t consider it equivalent to one’s holy guardian angel or supernatural assistant, they can share
some of the same functions. When I work with this spirit, especially for the first formal conjuration,
I use the following prayer instead of the DSIC generic conjuration prayer after the circle is traced
and the incense is set to burn:
212 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3b.htm#chap22
213 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3b.htm#chap26

199
 O spirit NN., I conjure you in the holy name of YHVH Eloah v’Da‘ath, in the name of
the Logos, in the name of the Holy Guardian Angel! Come now to this place and appear
before me, speak with me, commune with me that I may have the benefit of your direct
guidance.
O NN., you who were one with the Logos at the dawn of time, you who are Logos to
me now, you who created Heaven and Earth for me, you who has watched over me from
the moment of my birth, you who has called me to perform this ritual here and now! I
conjure you to appear before me. I am XX., child of YY. You have called me and I am
here. You have led me to this place and brought about all that has transpired in my life
to be here calling to you now. Come now and appear before me in the name of YHVH
Eloah v’Da‘ath. I conjure you, o NN.; appear before me here and now!

In this prayer, “NN.” is the name of the natal genius, “XX.” is your own name, and “YY.” is your
mother’s name (I like using matronyms in magic operations of this nature). Note that we’re calling
on the spirit specifically in the name of “YHVH Eloah v’Da‘ath”, a qabbalistic name associated
with Tiphereth and thus of the Sun. Also, I want to say that I got this prayer from Fr. RO’s RWC,
but I cannot for the life of me find it in any of the texts no matter how hard I try. It might have
come from his blog, one of the posts in the mailing list for RWC, or another source of his, but I
swear that I didn’t come up with this prayer out of the ether. (If anyone familiar with his sources,
or related ones, can point me in the right direction as to where I got this prayer from, I’d be deeply
appreciative. I’m pretty sure I didn’t write this prayer myself.)

8.2 Genii Locorum

However, there’s another specific conjuration prayer that I do know Fr. RO gave earlier in the
Black Work part of RWC, and that’s a conjuration of a genius loci, the spirit of a particular place,
especially those centered or linked to a particular river, stone, tree, mountain, home, or the like.
From the third Black Work lesson, Fr. RO describes a much pared-down conjuration ritual, foregoing
the usual formalities of candles, circles, and incense, and skipping ahead directly to the conjuration
itself, incorporating a libation and offering of food and drink to be poured out and scattered at the
specific points indicated in the prayer. At this point, having brought the genius loci into the crystal
with the offerings laid out, you’d then engage in communion with the spirit as usual, learning about
the spirit, its name, seal, and so forth. At the end, a pared-down license to depart is used, using
the name of the genius formally for the first time, based only loosely on that of DSIC:

O spirit of [land, tree, river, community, &c.], come to me! I call upon you by the four
angels of the corners of the world, by Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel! I call upon
you by the four kings of the world, by Oriens, Egyn, Paimon, and Amaymon! Come now
and receive this offering of [drink]. Come now and receive this offering of [food]. Come
now and appear before me in this crystal, that we may speak and understand each other.

...

NN., I thank you for coming. Return to me when I call you by name and by seal,
come quickly from wherever you may be, and let there be mutual peace and prosperity
between us until the end of our days.

200
 Though Agrippa would probably take issue with Fr. RO’s approach, Agrippa would also probably
take issue with DSIC itself. Just as DSIC plays pretty loose and fast with what Agrippa describes in
the Fourth Book, so too is Fr. RO playing loose and fast with DSIC. Yet—as I can myself attest—
this method of working with genii locorum can and does work! In retrospect, however, I would
recommend going through a more formal process that more closely resembles Agrippa’s method of
working with “evil spirits” (circle, incense, no triangle or crystal), or eschew it all in favor of a more
direct, diplomatic approach of approaching the spirit of a place without any conjuration at all, but
just making devotional offerings and getting to know the spirit on their own terms. Fr. RO, as I
interpret it, was introducing people who were brand new to the notion of working with spirits using
simple tools and spirits nearby them without them doing a full conjuration yet, but working up
towards it later.

8.3 Demons
Then there’s Fr. RO’s other text, Modern Goetic Grimoire, which he (like the rest of his ebooks)
no longer sells but (unlike the rest of his ebooks) I neither share nor bring up at length, especially
because the man is heading towards publishing it formally in a new and revised version. In his
(earlier?) approach to goetia, Fr. RO used a hybrid approach that combined some of the tools and
techniques from the Lemegeton Goetia with DSIC, replacing the DSIC magic circle with the one
from the Lemegeton, incorporating the pentagram-style pentacle of Solomon to be on the reverse of
the seal of the spirit (made in the Lemegeton-style instead of the Agrippa-style lamen), and using
a generally DSIC approach to setting up the conjuration ritual but replacing the actual prayer
of conjuration with one styled heavily after the first conjuration of the Lemegeton Goetia (the
one using the names Beralanensis, Baldachiensis, Paumachia, and Apologia Sedes). Because the
Lemegeton Goetia and Heptameron are both Solomonic texts that share very closely-related forms
of this prayer, and because the DSIC is itself a derivative of the Heptameron, one could easily use
the Heptameron prayer (either as it is or in an altered form) to conjure “evil spirits” in the sense
of demons like those found in goetic texts. While I won’t share Fr. RO’s version of the prayer, this
is one that I think follows a little more closely with the Heptameron while still being true to the
DSIC format. Using NN. for the name of the spirit to be conjured:

In the name of the blessed and holy Trinity, by Beralanens and Baldachiens and Pau-
machia and the seats of Apologia, by the most mighty kings and powers, by the mightiest
kings and strongest powers, by the most powerful princes, by the Spirit of Liachida, o
you minister of the Tartarean seat! Hear me, o NN.!
O chief prince of the seat of Apologia in the ninth legion, I desire you and call upon you,
o NN., by the power of Almighty God, by the will of Him who is called Tetragrammaton
. . . the holy God, the Father, He to whom all creatures fall obedient, that you come
forth here to this place and now to this time, taking your place to appear visibly before
me in this crystal, taking upon yourself a peaceful, visible, affable, and comely form.
Come forth, o NN., in the name of God whose mighty and true Name—YHVH—being
resounded makes the elements to be overthrown, the winds to shake, the sea to recede,
the fire to be quenched, the earth to tremble, and all spirits above the Earth, upon the
Earth, and under the Earth cower in fear and confusion!
Come forth, o NN., without delay, quickly, quickly, immediately, immediately, from
wherever you may be, from any part of the world, from whatever form or nature you

201
 take, in the name of the true and living God—Helioren—that you might manifest and
reveal to me that which I desire, answering my demands in as far as I shall not transgress
the bounds of divine Mercy and Goodness by requesting unlawful knowledge.
Come forth, o NN., and stay not where you are, delay not for any cause, doing nothing
but coming to me to assist me in my desires and needs, in the name of the Lord God—
Bachac rushing upon Abrac, Abeor over Aberor—all for the glory and honor of His
divine Majesty, He who lives and reigns, world without end. Amen.
Lord, your Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Make clean my heart within me,
and take not Your holy Spirit from me.
O Lord, by Your Name have I called NN.; suffer him to administer unto me, that no
iniquity be done and all harm flee from me, so that all things in Heaven and on Earth
may work together for Your honor and glory, to whom with You the Son and the Holy
Spirit be ascribed all might, majesty, and dominion. Amen.

This is my own mishmash of the Heptameron conjuration prayers of such spirits—with my

own modifications to structure and grammar—put into the same overall framework as the DSIC
conjuration prayer. Of course, incorporating such prayers for such spirits might be a bit too
much for a pure-DSIC approach to handle, so I would still recommend that either you use the the
pentacle of Solomon (either hexagram-style or pentagram-style, though I would recommend using
the hexagram-style) on the reverse of the lamen of the spirit to be called in this way, as well as
having offensive incenses compounded of peppers and sulfur and the like. Just in case things go
wrong.
Now, I don’t mean to limit DSIC to working with just angels, demons, or spirits of the land; the
format of DSIC is solid enough, grounded in Agrippa-style theurgy and Solomonic-style conjuration
(though sometimes coming across as confused as to which it wants to be or do more of), to be
used for truly any kind of spirit. While the specific conjuration prayer used by DSIC is phrased
generally enough to be used for any kind of spirit, we can play around a bit with modifying it
or replacing it with other prayers that are specifically geared to specific kinds of spirit or even to
specific spirits themselves. In doing so, we begin a process of reincorporating DSIC into a more
traditionally-Solomonic milieu or take it further away into a more animist, theurgic, or other style
of approaching and working with spirits. The above examples show that DSIC can be altered in
just such a way—but they are only just a few examples that show what can be done, not to indicate
the limits of what could be done. Other spirits that don’t fall into the categories above should have
their own prayers written specifically for them; heck, even specific angels themselves could have
their own specific prayers used to conjure them, if one so chooses.

202
9 What to Do when Things Go Wrong
One of the reasons why I wanted to write up my own (far more long-winded than I ever intended)
analysis and description of DSIC is because, at heart, I’m an engineer. I went to school for engi-
neering, specifically with a focus in computer science and software engineering and development,
and one of my professional skills is that of a technical writer. While I might take a more colloquial,
conversational tone in my blog posts, those who are familiar with my ebooks might have picked
up that I’m much more formal and logical when I write specific guides, because I am a lover of
procedure, process, method, and methodology. It’s why I was so exact in the individual steps in
my DSIC ritual script, describing the specific placement and motions and gestures to be made that
neither DSIC nor Fr. RO nor even Fr. AC went to such lengths to describe, because I like making
sure that every single step of the ritual is clear for both myself and others so that the exact same
process can be replicated even if you haven’t seen it before or been shown it previously. I’d like to
think that I’m doing the world a good and helpful thing this way, but only time will tell.
It’s because I’m such a lover of process and method that I can be a bit neurotic when it comes
to what-ifs. Besides just going over alternative designs or conjurations to account for varying the-
ologies, cosmologies, theories, desires, and components that underlie our own individual approaches
to DSIC, I can also be paranoid sometimes about “what if this doesn’t work” or “what if things
don’t work how I wanted them to” or “what if something happens that wasn’t supposed to hap-
pen”. And, unfortunately, neither DSIC nor Fr. RO (in RWC and SS both) nor Fr. AC (in GTSC)
really talk about anything to allay such fears of mine; I’ve had to resort to my own research and
experimentation, sometimes playing things by ear under just such a circumstance, so that I can
(hopefully) come out at least no worse than I was going into the experiment. Now, we’ll talk about
what happens when you use the DSIC conjuration and things don’t go right.
Honestly, there are as many things that can go wrong (or, at least unexpectedly) that there are
things that you would perform the DSIC conjuration for to begin with. I can’t account for your own
individual experiments, needs, or desires, so while there’s plenty to talk about for niche or specific
cases, it’s only of necessity (and not wanting to drag this out any further) that I can’t go into every
possible thing that can go wrong. But, as far as the DSIC ritual script is concerned, there are a
few things that we can talk about that you should be prepared for just in case they happen.
We will assume, for the sake of this post, that you’re performing the DSIC conjuration ritual
as close as you can without needless modifications, and that you’re doing things as correctly as
you can: you did the preliminary preparations and purifications, you said all the prayers right and
gracefully, you’re calling upon a particular spirit within the proper planetary hour, and the like.
Even though everything should work out fine, there’s always the chance that they won’t, and you
should be aware of your options to take when things go sideways—or don’t go at all.

9.1 When the Spirit Won’t Show Up

This is the most common thing that can happen for a lot of people: you start the ritual as normal,
you recite the prayer of conjuration (attempt #1), and. . . nothing. Nada. Zilch. Silence. Null
and void. You wait a bit, you try to open your spiritual eyes and ears and mind, and there’s just
nothing there to perceive. The spirit just isn’t there.
In this case, try it again; recite the prayer of conjuration once again (attempt #2). If, after
waiting a bit again and silently listening and looking and perceiving, you still get nothing, recite it
once more (attempt #3) and try perceiving the spirit again. Don’t vary the prayers, don’t change

203
anything else; if anything, light a bit more incense (not necessary if you’re using self-igniting
incense), and just repeat the prayer of conjuration of the spirit up to three times. Don’t try to trick
yourself into seeing or hearing or perceiving something that isn’t there; if it’s there, you’ll know.
If the spirit still doesn’t show up after the third time, you can’t proceed with the authentication
or communion of the spirit. There are two courses of action you can take here, either one or both,
if you so choose:

1. Ask the spirit to specifically reveal itself to you in a way that you can perceive, whether by
sight, sound, or any other sense. Give it a chance to reform and reconfigure itself into a form
that you can actually work with. You can also, instead of this or in addition to it, either
pray to God for help in opening up your mind and spiritual perception or ask for the spirit’s
help in doing just that, just a touch, so that you can align yourself better with the spirit to
perceive it better.
2. Whether or not you can perceive the spirit, treat it like it’s there regardless. State aloud what
you conjured it for, give it a charge, and issue any requests you wanted to make. Don’t go
crazy and try to do any heavy scrying, pathworking, consecration, or anything like that, but
if it’s something simple like intel-gathering or fixing a problem or helping with a situation,
keep it clear, concise, and concrete.

Whether you took option #1, option #2, both, or neither, the ritual shouldn’t be outright
aborted, but you should proceed to the dismissal of the spirit. Even if you tried to conjure the
spirit and swear that nothing showed up at all, there’s always the chance that something did show
up and you just didn’t pick up on it, so as a matter of protocol, you should always give a license to
depart. Proceed with that normally, then wrap up the ritual as normal.
After the ritual, take account of what might have gone wrong. Was the planetary hour correct?
Did you get the planetary hour right but the planetary day wrong (not that should matter, but
it could)? Was the planet that presides over the spirit maligned, harmed, impedited, or otherwise
badly affected in any way? Is Mercury currently retrograde? Is the Moon doing something weird,
like is it void of course or in the Via Combusta? Did you not prepare for the ritual appropriately
with ablutions, prayers, fasting, and purifications? Did you use the wrong kind of incense? Were
you wearing anything different? Did you set up different wards or protections on the temple space
than normal? Were you sick or getting over being sick? Are you taking any different medications?
Have you made offerings to your ancestors, land spirits, and spirit guides lately? Try to find out
where things might have gone wrong, especially if you have a track record of successful conjurations,
and see what can be improved upon in your general approach.

9.2 When the Spirit You Get Isn’t the One You Wanted
So you’re doing the conjuration, and you make the prayer of conjuration, and wahey! a spirit
shows up. But something’s off: you don’t get the resonance you expected, the spirit isn’t at all
what you thought it would look or are used to it looking, and when proceeding with the questions
of authentication, the spirit clearly and unambiguously says that it is certainly not the spirit you
explicitly called upon, neither by name nor office nor seal nor nature nor function. You got a spirit,
but it’s not the one you called upon. Although it’s rare that such a spirit will just randomly pop
up in your crystal, it can happen, and has happened to me a very few number of times before as
it has to some of my colleagues. I can’t exactly trace why or under what circumstances—I find

204
that performing conjurations during Mercury’s retrograde periods tends to cause a slightly higher
number of weird events when dealing with a ritual that explicitly involves communication, especially
when dealing with planets that are on the same level or higher than Mercury itself—but it happens.
So what should we do?
First, ask the spirit who and what it is. In most occasions, the spirit just ended up there seeing
a window of opportunity to hijack the conjuration ritual for their own ends, butting out any other
spirit to take their place so as to get your attention. Be polite and friendly, but don’t exactly be
welcoming; after all, they weren’t the one you were calling, and they’re not the ones you invited.
Sometimes such a spirit has a distinct and honest need that you can help resolve, and in so doing,
they’ll help you out in return, or they can facilitate other work for you. Whether or not you agree
to do so is up to you. However you choose to resolve this, at some point, you’ll be done interacting
with the interloping spirit. Proceed to the license to depart and let the spirit go. If you have
sufficient time to do so, begin the conjuration process again starting with the prayers to conjure
the spirit you wanted; otherwise, if you don’t have enough time before the chosen planetary hour
ends, just wrap up and try again at another time.
It has also happened on at least one occasion I’m aware of that the spirit you got is related,
connected, or commissioned to appear on behalf of the spirit whom you were calling. In other words,
the spirit you called didn’t show up, but sent another spirit in their stead to speak and act on their
behalf. Such a spirit would be a messenger or functionary of the one you called upon, a servant
who can (usually) fulfill all the needs of the big-name spirit that you wanted. In effect, so long as
the spirit is who they say they are and passes the questions of authentication as such (obtaining
their name, seal, and specific office for future reference), the ritual can proceed as expected from
there, giving the license to depart to this new spirit.
This latter sort of thing happening, moreover, is probably more expected in the older Solomonic
and angelic-conjuration literature, like Liber Juratus Honorii or Heptameron, given how many
angels there are under each of the seven big ones for the planets, with all their angels of the air,
alternate-primary angels, and the like, and the Secret Grimoire of Turiel itself gives an example of
conjuring “Turiel, Coniel, or Babiel”, the messengers of Jupiter, and seeing who popped out, which
just so happened to be Turiel. Although not exactly like the situation described, it does show that,
depending on your specific approach to conjuration and the sets of angels or spirits you’re working
with, you may well want to focus on subordinate spirits rather than the big-named guys themselves.

9.3 When the Spirit You Get Isn’t who They Say They Are
Now we get to something actually problematic: you do the conjuration, you say the prayers, a spirit
shows up, and it looks, talks, acts, and feels like what you expect. Yet, when you proceed with the
questions of authentication. . . something’s wrong. They falter in their responses; their image goes
blurry, distorted, or otherwise disfigured; they hesitate to reply, or give you no reply at all; the
replies they give you aren’t at all what you expected, or could even reasonably expect, while still
trying to keep up the overall identity of being the spirit you wanted. It’s evident that the spirit
that’s present came in wearing a mask of the spirit you wanted, and their real identity is showing
through. Now what?
Though we should try, as magicians who walk with good character and dignity and grace, to take
a light-handed approach to resolve problems whenever possible, there are times when it’s necessary
to use heavy-handed solutions to the problems we encounter—but, unless we have good cause to do
so, it’s better to never be more forceful than necessary to resolve such a situation. In this situation,

205
we have a spirit who’s actively lying or deceiving you, and that’s not a great thing because, despite
our consecrations and preparations and prayers we’ve made to ensure that such a spirit doesn’t
present itself in our crystal, one has still made its way there.
At this point, we need to assert our authority as magicians who operate with the dignity, grace,
and light of Divinity and set things back to right. When a spirit tries to keep up a farce like this,
this is where we make use of our wand as not just a representation of power but as a tool of it.
Referencing Agrippa’s method for dealing with spirits of which “you doubt of any lie” (book IV,
chapter 12)214 , take the wand and trace either a triangle (the shape of Saturn) or a pentagram (the
shape of Mars) over the crystal (not necessarily directly on it, but towards it if you can’t reach it),
and issue a command that the spirit be bound into the crystal and sworn to truth by the power of
God (use whatever divine names you feel like, but especially both the general divine names as well
as the specific ones for those two planets). With such prayers as might be necessary pulled from
other Solomonic literature, you might issue commands to impel the spirit to be truthful and honest
and reveal itself in a way comely and appropriate for you; you might likewise recite prayers to God
that he shine the divine, all-encompassing Light of Truth into the crystal and obliterate both all
darkness and all deception that the spirit’s true form and nature be revealed unto you. There’s no
need to launch a full-out offensive against the spirit, but you do need to figure out who and what
the spirit is and why they came into your crystal uninvited.
Once you’ve done so, proceed as before when you got something else you didn’t expect, but
don’t be so willing or ready to treat it as an emissary of the spirit you were trying to conjure,
unless it comes forward cleanly and honestly, swearing by God and upon your very wand (which
you should have pointed directly and steadily at the spirit in the crystal, bounded by the triangle
or pentagram you drew, this whole time) that it actually has—and that’s unlikely. If you feel
charitable or think you can put the spirit to work, that’s up to you; interact with it however you
judge it best and wisest to do so. Whenever you’re finished, whether or not you wish to actually
work with the interloper, give it the license to depart and send it away.
While you could try to salvage the ritual at this point, starting over again from the prayer of
conjuration of the spirit, it might be better to end the ceremony at this point with the proper
closing, perform a full banishing of the temple space, sprinkle the crystal and all participants with
holy water, and try again at another point in time.

9.4 When the Spirit You Get Won’t Swear Their Help to You
So we’re doing the conjuration, we say the prayers as we should, a spirit shows up, it’s behaving
and appearing as we expect, it passes the four questions of authentication; so far, so good! But
when we get to the final question:

Do you swear by the blood and righteousness of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you are
truly NN. as you say you are and that you come to help me as I have called you?

. . . the spirit says “no”. Okay, well then. Well, let’s try something different. Note that I’ve changed
this question from the original final question of authentication from DSIC, which went almost
identically:

Wilt thou swear by the blood and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou art
truly NN.?
214 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap12

206
 In other words, the original DSIC question only served to make the spirit swear that they were
who they said they were; my version makes them swear that they are who they say they are and
that they have come to help us in alignment with our goals. I made this change specifically to
correct what I felt was an oversight in DSIC that I think Fr. AC went too far with in GTSC by
getting a full and formal oath sworn by the spirit that they come both honestly and helpfully.
So, let’s assume the spirit doesn’t agree to the combined identity-and-purpose oath we’re putting
to them. In this case, ask instead something that falls along the lines of the original DSIC oath
(updated for modernity):

Do you swear by the blood and righteousness of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you are
truly NN. as you say you are?

If the spirit says “yes” to that, then good! We’re making progress, and we still have some sort
of oath that we can rely upon them by! In that case, they came honestly, but they didn’t come for
your sake or for the purposes that you called them for. In other words, they showed up, but it’s not
because of you. This is a case where you need to proceed carefully, and ask humbly and reverently
why they have come if not to help you as you have called them. They could be on a particular
assignment, mission, or task that involves you, or that your needs that you wanted to call them for
are not legitimate in their eyes or the eyes of God. Listen, inquire, and learn from them. Continue
the conjuration under these circumstances, and when done, close out the conjuration as normal.
But let’s say that the spirit doesn’t, won’t, or can’t swear by even the simple oath of just their
identity. Just as Fr. AC says, I too have never found a legitimate spirit hesitate to swear this
or otherwise affirm it, but it can happen that this spirit just. . . won’t. This, above and beyond
any of the other questions, is the final and ultimate test of authentication. If they can’t or won’t
swear this, then they’re not the spirit you wanted, and are a spirit that’s just exceptionally good
at deceiving you. Fall back to the previous situation on what to do when the spirit you get isn’t
who they say they are.

9.5 When the Spirit Just Won’t Leave

Now we get to a fun situation. We’re in the ritual, we’ve said the prayers, we called down the spirit,
the spirit is who they said they are, they’ve sworn their identity and their assistance to us, and
we’ve had a grand old time communing with them and doing whatever it is we wanted to do with
them. Now, our time has come to an end, and we give them the license to depart. . . but they don’t.
Like, they’re still absolutely there. They’re still present, notably and perceptibly present, above
and beyond just residual echoes of their power and presence. They can still respond to questions
and commands—just, apparently, not your wish that they leave. And you can’t properly close the
ritual until they do.
Depending on the nature of the spirit, you can take different approaches. If it’s something
cosmic, celestial, angelic, and otherwise a “good spirit”, which is what many people use DSIC for,
they’re almost never going to linger so forcefully like this, but there is a chance that they could.
In this case, though you might have finished your business with them, they haven’t finished their
business with you. Talk with them, investigate why they haven’t left when invited to, figure out
what unfinished business might still need to be taken care of. Let them have the ball for a bit, and
let them explain themselves and whatever they need to let you know or do. Heed it, agree to it
(if reasonable) or work something out (if unreasonable), and then, once all is said and done, and
that you’ve confirmed that everything is said and done, give the license to depart again. So long

207
as everything is, in fact, said and done, they’re not going to stay; once they’ve gone, then you can
properly close down the ritual.
But if the spirit is of a different sort—something chthonic, terrestrial, demonic, necromantic, or
the like—then you can certainly try the above as well; that’s still recommended! But maybe they
just don’t wanna leave, punk. Maybe they like it here and find your temple a cozy place to be, and
everything will all be fine, so long as you don’t kick them out. It’s fine, go ahead and close down
the ritual, everything’ll be fine. Right? Wrong. Remember that, as the magician, you are to be in
control of your rituals and ceremonies, and when you invite spirits to stay for a bit, it’s only for a
bit, and they need to go when you ask them to. If they don’t, then you need to make them go.
You can try a similar approach above with when the spirit you get isn’t who they say they
are, drawing a triangle or pentagram upon the crystal and getting their forced agreement to leave.
You can issue commands of exorcism or banishing (the exorcism of the spirits of the air from
the Heptameron, or the curse of the Lemegeton Goetia) combined with burning offensive incenses
compounded of pepper, sulfur, pine, and the like to cast them out. You could use a variant of
the Bond of Solomon from the Munich Manual to force them to leave, basically constraining them
anew (as you did similarly when you conjured them), except this time getting them to leave. You
could perform any number of rituals, ceremonies, or the like to get them to leave; I’ll remind you,
too, dear reader, that the Headless Rite was itself originally a ritual of exorcism.
However, be careful when you pull out any sort of big gun or big stick (or even when using
your wand as one), because things can get dangerous rather quickly. For that reason, before you
engage with spirits that could (or at least are more likely to) cause you problems, it’s recommended
that you gain the oaths, support, induction, and blessing of the more benefic cosmic spirits (i.e.
the seven planetary angels) before engaging with, say, goetic kings or princes or the like. It’s also
helpful—probably beyond literally anything and everything else—to have some sort of connection
forged with your holy guardian angel, agathodaimōn, or supernatural assistant to help uplift and
assist you, both in this and in all magical works. You may also want to consider having a secondary
lamen, such as the pentacle of Solomon from the Heptameron or the Secret Grimoire of Turiel,
either worn separately, upon your girdle/belt/scarf, kept covered until as needed in such a rough
situation, or have it drawn or affixed to the back of the lamen of the spirit you’re conjuring. It
might take more time and effort to be so prepared, but you’ll never complain if you are when you
need to be.
Even though DSIC is a fairly straightforward and simple ritual of conjuration, there are a
surprising number of moving parts to it, and though we don’t expect things to go wrong, things
still can and do. While we can’t account for everything that can possibly go wrong for every possible
magician that uses it, we can at least note a few of the more common issues that can arise and
have a set of procedures—or at least some notions or ideas—on how to either fix the conjuration
or salvage it so that we don’t end up any worse than we did going into the conjuration.

208
10 Dechristianizing DSIC
As we’ve shown at many points during our review, survey, and discussion over the past number
of weeks, it’s clear that DSIC is very much a relatively late product of Western Renaissance Her-
metic, Solomonic, and qabbalistic literature, relying especially on Agrippa’s Fourth Book and the
Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano but also referencing many other texts in those same lines, which
were universally written with either pseudo-Jewish language, Christian language, or both. I mean,
heck, DSIC itself is attributed to a Christian abbot, Johannes Trithemius of Spanheim, so it should
come as little surprise that we’d find Christian phrases and reliance on the power of Jesus Christ
in our prayers—even if the real authorship of DSIC lies either with Barrett himself or one of his
contemporaries or near-predecessors.
It really shouldn’t catch anyone off-guard that every tool, implement, and prayer in DSIC is
accompanied with or emblazoned by names of God or references to Jesus; after all, that pretty much
is the whole of the grimoire tradition from a pretty early period onwards up into the modern era.
After all, the majority of Europeans have (for better or worse) been various kinds of Christian for
at least the past 1000 years, if not 1500 or even longer more; for the past thirty or so generations of
European-centric culture, people were born Christian, lived Christian, and died Christian. It was
heresy, apostasy, and blasphemy to do otherwise—though, of course, the exact limits of what could
be considered “Christian” would certainly vary from place to place and people to people, especially
once you account for even longer-lived traditions that carried on under Christian masques.
It’s only within relatively recent history that people born within a largely European or Western
culture are willingly and openly choosing to live in non-Christian ways again, and though some of
those people do so in a way that’s respectful and understanding of their Christian heritage (which
of course they have), many people just outright leave it all behind and want nothing to do with
it anymore. And I don’t blame them! It’s not like Christianity, beautiful religion that it can be
when you get into the theologies and eschatologies and salvific elements, has earned itself a good
reputation when you factor in the institutionalization, politics, war crimes, sexual abuse epidemics,
colonization, and all the other horrific problems that come about when you become an imperialist
power of the shit-filled world we live in. As the Indian philosopher Bara Dada once said, “Jesus is
ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him”.
To get to the point: we have a modern, thriving occulture and occult scene being played out on
worldwide platforms that has dozens, hundreds of spiritual lineages, traditions, and practices being
shared, applied, experimented with, adjusted, and adapted by a hundred times as many people
each and every day. The problem that arises, as far as DSIC (and this discussion) is concerned, is
when people are presented with a ritual text and want to (or are directed or suggested to) apply it
but are yet unwilling to do so due to its Christian tone and approach because they themselves are
uncomfortable with Christianity. What can be done?
In all honesty, the easiest choice is to just use the text as written: despite any hangups, chips on
your shoulder, or hesitation when it comes to Christian language and theology, the honest-to-God
most straightforward approach here is to just suck it up, shelve your hesitations or chips or blocks,
and use DSIC. It’s already a complete (well. . . mostly, sorta) text that works, and has been shown
to work by Christians and non-Christians alike (I’m proof of just that). You don’t need to be Jewish
to use Psalms in magic, you don’t need to be Hindu to make pūjā for the devas, you don’t need to
be Buddhist to use mantras for the bodhisattvas, and you don’t need to be Christian to use DSIC. If
the only thing that prevents you from using DSIC (by all accounts an easy, straightforward method
to Western-style conjuration, if not an introduction to even heavier and more laborious and intense

209
texts than that) is you, then either you should sit with yourself and try to resolve your hangups
that has nothing directly to do with them (it’s not like Christian authorities would exactly approve
of what DSIC does!), or perhaps find a different approach to magic and conjuration entirely that
doesn’t cause you such problems.
But that’s not a great answer, and can come across as pretty insensitive. Plus, with the title of
the post as it is, you can guess I’m not gonna accept that answer myself.
Yes, there are ways we can modify the ritual text to avoid references to Christ; that’s not that
difficult at all, and is actually pretty trivial if you know a few non-Christian set phrases here and
there to replace Christian set phrases. For instance, the divine name Agla is, in reality, an acronym
for the Hebrew phrase Atah gibor le-olam Adonai, “You are mighty forever, my Lord”, and we see
echoes of this in some of the older prayers used in Christianity, such as “mighty unto the ages of
ages” or “whose mercy endures forever and ever” or “world without end”. So, for instance, whenever
we see a conclusion to the prayer that ends in “through Jesus Christ our Lord” or any variation
thereof, we can replace it with “for the honor and glory of God Almighty” or “for your honor and
glory” (depending on whether God is being addressed or not in that specific prayer). Instead of
“in the name of the blessed Trinity”, we can simply say “in the name of God Almighty”—or, if you
wanted to replace this with a more Islamic flavor, “in the name of God the Most Gracious and Most
Merciful”. Changes like this are pretty easy and straightforward to make.
For instance, below is a copy of the DSIC ritual script that contains just the prayers from DSIC,
but with all references to Christ and the Trinity removed and substituted with fairly appropriate
changes in bold text:

O God, you who are the author of all good things! I beseech you, strengthen this
your poor servant, that he may stand fast without fear through this dealing and work. I
beseech you, o Lord, enlighten the dark understanding of your creature, that his spiritual
eye may be opened to see and know your angelic spirits descending here into this crystal.
O inanimate creature of God, be sanctified and consecrated and blessed to this purpose:
that no evil phantasy may appear in you, or, if one should gain ingress into you, that
they be constrained to speak intelligibly, truly, and without the least ambiguity, for the
honor and glory of God Most High. Amen.
As your servant standing here before you, o Lord, who desires neither evil treasures,
nor injury to his neighbor, nor hurt to any living creature; grant him the power of
descrying those celestial spirits and intelligences that may appear in this crystal, and
whatever good gifts—whether the power of healing infirmities, or of imbibing wisdom,
or discovering any evil likely to afflict any person or family, or any other good gift—you
might be pleased to bestow on me. Enable me, by your wisdom and mercy, to use
whatever I may receive to the honor of your holy name. Grant that all this may
come to pass for your honor and glory. Amen.
In the name of God Most High and Most Holy do I consecrate this piece of ground
for our defense, so that no evil spirit may have power to break these bounds prescribed
here, by the everlasting power of God. Amen.
I conjure you, o creature of fire, by Him who created all things, both in Heaven and Earth
and the Sea and in every other place whatsoever, that you cast away every phantasm
from you, so that no hurt whatsoever shall be done in any thing.

210
 Bless, o Lord, this creature of fire, and sanctify it that it may be blessed, and that your
blessing may fill up the power and virtue of its odors, so that neither the enemy nor
any false imagination may enter into them, that all things may serve towards your
honor and glory. Amen.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful! I desire you, o strong
mighty angel NN., that if it be the divine will of him who is called Tetragrammaton . . .
the Holy God, the Father, that you take upon yourself some shape as best becomes your
celestial nature, and appear to me visibly here in this crystal, and answer my demands
in as far as I shall not transgress the bounds of divine mercy and grace by requesting
unlawful knowledge, but that you graciously show me what things are most profitable
for me to know and do, to the glory and honor of his divine majesty, he who lives and
reigns, world without end. Amen.
Lord, your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Make clean my heart within me,
and take not your holy spirit from me.
O Lord, by your name have I called NN.; suffer him to administer unto me, and that
all things may work together for your honor and glory, that to you, o Lord, be ascribed
all might, majesty, and dominion. Amen.
O Lord! I give to you my hearty and sincere thanks for the hearing of my prayer, and
I thank you for having permitted your spirit NN. to appear unto me, whom I, by your
grace, will interrogate to my further instruction, in your holy Light. Amen.
Do you swear by and within the True Light of God that reveals all secrets and
obliterates all darkness that you are truly the spirit as you say you are and that you
come to help me as I have called you?
O great and mighty spirit NN, inasmuch as you came in peace and in the name of the
ever-blessed and righteous Trinity, so too in this name you may depart, and return to
me when I call you in His name to whom every knee bows down. Farewell, o NN.! May
peace be between us for the eternal honor and glory of God Almighty. Amen.
To God, the Father, the eternal Spirit, the fountain of Light, the Creator of all creation,
and the Sustainer of all life be all honor and glory, world without end. Amen.

Like, I did all that in about five minutes, copy-pasting and all. It wasn’t hard. And, moreover,
it ties in just fine with the use of the DSIC tools that similarly don’t involve Christian language; the
few divine names that are used have no relationship to Christ (which is another argument in favor
of their ultimate Solomonic origins, I might add). All the things I replaced were only in the prayers
to be made, and were replaced with pretty bland and basically-equivalent things that maintained
the same sense of what I wanted to use to begin with. Heck, based on some of Fr. RO’s writings
before on using more classically Hermetic stuff, I’ve got my own version of drawing out the circle
specifically with a more Hermetic-Gnostic bent, which departs more from the DSIC phrasing but
does exactly the same thing:

In the name of the Nous, this circle is consecrated for our defense.
By the power of the Logos, this circle is defended for our perfection.
For the sake of the Sophia, this circle is perfected for our work.
Through the might of the Aiōn, may all that is baneful be cast out, that only Good
may here remain.

211
 But there are those who would still take issue with this dechristianized version of DSIC because
to them it’d still read as “too Christian”. Despite this not being Christian at all anymore, it
is still theistic in the Abrahamic sense, and that’s much harder to avoid because the prayers of
DSIC are fundamentally Solomonic, and Solomonic texts are absolutely Abrahamic coming from a
long tradition of Jewish magic, whether or not Hellenistic, Babylonian, Neoplatonic, or qabbalistic
elements are involved or not. To remove God from DSIC would mean completely detaching DSIC
not only from its Solomonic tradition, but from the entirety of the Solomonic hierarchial worldview
with God at the top of it and all things being accomplished by it under the authority and with the
license of God. And that’s very difficult to accomplish, because doing so means we need to rethink
the entire cosmological underpinnings of DSIC that allows it to work at all.
It’s a lot like petitioning Christian saints, like (especially) St. Cyprian of Antioch, without being
Christian: sure, you can do so, and it’s not like the saints themselves will (typically) spurn you,
because they recognize that the same divinity that made them holy is within you, too. But you
can’t petition the saints or approach them without recognizing that it’s quite literally Jesus Christ
that made them a saint to begin with. If you accept the validity of the power and presence of
Christian saints but deny the fundamental divinity that gives them that power and presence, then
you’re basically trying to ascribe power to the saints themselves apart and away from Jesus, which
isn’t how it works at all. Not only that, but you also end up insulting the saints by disparaging
and denying the God and savior they themselves worship. It doesn’t end prettily. You don’t have
to be Christian to work with the saints (even if it does help immensely to be so), but you do need
to recognize and honor Jesus Christ in your work with them because that’s the fundamental source
of their own power.
Likewise, I know (and have personally encountered) some people who want to work with angels
but who don’t like the idea of God and end up ignoring God entirely in their works. That’s honestly
a contradiction, because no matter how you cut it, the angels are the functionaries, emissaries, and
servants of God; it’s right in their names (Michael ← “Who is like God?”, Raphael ← “Healing of
God”, Gabriel ← “Strength of God”, etc.). To take entities like this and completely remove them
from their cosmological, theological, and mythological origins really doesn’t leave you with a lot
to work with, because accepting the power of the angels necessitates accepting the power of God.
God and the angels come together as part of a package deal; you can’t really take one and leave
the other without leaving yourself in the dust. You don’t have to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim
or partake in any kind of Abrahamic faith, but you do have to recognize the power and sovereignty
of God in order to enter into the hierarchy that allows the angels themselves to work as well as
to allow DSIC, as a ritual that’s fundamentally based on the angels and Solomonic hierarchies, to
function.
So is that it, then? If you don’t believe in God, you’re screwed as far as DSIC is concerned?
Well. . . yes and no. “Yes” because DSIC fundamentally relies on a notion of a Divine Sovereign at
the top of a cosmological hierarchy to which all things in the cosmos must necessarily obey when
presented by an authority licensed by that Sovereign, to whom we can petition that we receive such
authority and license to perform spiritual works to direct and summon spiritual entities as we desire
within the boundaries of the permission of that Sovereign, under whom are particular planetary and
worldly powers that facilitate creation, manifestation, and materialization in the world we live in
that ultimately is made by and ruled by that Sovereign. That is my understanding of the bare-bones
cosmology under which the DSIC ritual operates, apart and away from its Solomonic vocabulary
and structure. That notion of Divine Sovereign is the “God” in which you must believe in order to
use DSIC, so if you can’t buy that, then yes, you’re screwed.

212
 That being said, the Divine Sovereign of DSIC is not necessarily identical to the God of the
Jews, the God of the Christians, or the God of the Muslims, or any one particular cosmocrator,
all-ruling deity or divinity of any particular tradition or faith. If you can look behind some of the
classically-used terms that people (who happen to be Jewish or Christian or Muslim, or some variant
thereof that includes traditional, indigenous, or otherwise pagan influences without being classified
as outright heretical or apostate) used to refer to this Divine Sovereign and see the fundamental
divinity behind any particular religious approach and see something that you can understand and
work with, then no, you’re not screwed, and can use DSIC just fine. You might have hang-ups
with some of the language used, and that can be resolved or worked with, finding appropriate
substitutions as necessary, but once you understand why some of those very same terms and names
are used, you can begin to appreciate what purpose they fulfill in the grander cosmological scheme
of things and can still apply them without necessarily having to buy into any individual religious
tradition that you don’t like or agree with. In that light, you could consider this Divine Sovereign
as YHVH of Judaism, as the Triune God of Christianity, as ‘Allāh of Islam, as Zeus Pantokrator
of the Hellenes, Iupiter Optimus Maximus of the Romans, the Good of the Platonists, the Nous of
the Hermeticists, Vis.n.u of Vaishnavaite Hindus or Śiva of Shaivite Hindus, and so on. (This is one
of the mysteries, as I see it, of Hermeticism as a spiritual practice: being able to see through the
different interpretations to get to that which is interpreted directly.)
That’s where we need to be careful when changing the language and divine names used in
DSIC—or, for that matter, any Solomonic or Hermetic ritual—because they typically fulfill some
spiritual function at least as often as they fulfill some poetic or literary function. While the phrases
I replaced in my simple dechristianized DSIC alternative above were pretty easy, they also filled
more-or-less the exact same role as the original Christian language, but I didn’t touch the divine
names used on the tools because there was no need to and fit just as cleanly with the adapted
ritual text as it did the original. As Fr. AC says in GTSC, at least where it comes to the prayers
themselves, that if the Christian language of the prayers used in DSIC “are too much of an aversion
to your spiritual nature”, then you should make alternative prayers that—and he emphasizes this
strongly and in no uncertain terms—”match [the original prayers] as closely as possible“. This is
most easily accomplished by simply changing some of the language, but you would need to do so
in a way that matches the function of the original language as well as maintaining the underlying
cosmological framework, as well.
I’m suddenly reminded that, back in February 2009, Fr. RO put up a post on his blog215 (a
single post, unlike. . . what, is this the 21st post in this series?) that was basically a synopsis of how
to conjure spirits using a very pared-down, fast-and-loose version of DSIC. In it, he describes some
non-Christian, and even non-Abrahamic things one might use for a combined lamen-cum-Table of
Practice and some of the prayers:

You’ll need to draw the spirit’s symbol inside a hexagram, underneath it’s name. A
Hexagram is a Star of David, made of two triangles, one pointing up and one pointing
down. Each little triangle formed by the points should be the same size.
Around this hexagram, draw FIVE Pentragrams (five-pointed stars). Four of these stars
represent the four Angels of the Corners of the Earth. The Fifth represents the Spirit
you are conjuring.
Next write the spirit’s name above these stars. In the Fourth Book, you write them in
Hebrew.
215 http://headforred.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-conjure-spirits.html

213
 Next, draw an equilateral triangle around everything you’ve drawn so far.
Next, draw a circle around the Triangle. It should touch the three points of the triangle.
Draw another circle around that circle, about a half-inch or so out from the first circle. In
the border you have created, write the Names of God. These Names will vary depending
on your source. If you’ve studied the Golden Dawn version of the Tree of Life, and have
performed the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram a time or two, and the Middle
Pillar on occasion, then you should probably use the Names of God that are assigned
to the ten Sephiroth.
In my opinion, you can write IAO, LOGOS, Chronos, Zeus, Apollo, Aries, Aphrodite,
Hermes, Artemis, and Hephaestus. You can throw in Hecate instead of Hepaestus too,
but I’d keep Hephaestus in there anyhow. Now these are Greek manifestations of the
faces of God that were revealed to a set of people that were not given the Law the way
God gave it to the Jews. Instead, they were given the Logos in the form of Philosophy
and other weirdness.*
Either way, or any other way, you’re representing in the outermost circle the manifes-
tations of God that represent the different phases He went through in his emanation of
the physical world. By listing these secret names, you the magician are pointing out
to the servants of the Most High that you’re in on the secret, you understand the way
things work, and that you’re an initiate. It’s like a badge that a sheriff wears. There’s
no magic in the star of the cop, it’s what it represents that makes a criminal have to
listen.
...
When I trace a Circle, I say, “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I
consecrate this ground for our defense!” You can say, IAO, LOGOS, and Spiritus
Mundi/Spiritus Sancti if you’re not feeling particularly comfortable with the names
of God from the Christian tradition. I strongly urge you to stick with the neoplatonic
system though. You’ll need a representative of the Monad, the Intercessor, and the
Spirit that maintains everything in your world, like the name of your Nativity Angel,
Genius, Agathadaimon, or HGA. By touching on these three things, you’re retracing
your path up through the spheres, and acknowledging who you are and what your status
is. You’re affirming that you are indeed the magician in the center square of the Circle
of the Goetia with these simple words.
In some ways, I agree with his logic, and as a result, I’m reminded of some of Satyr Magos’
old work from a few years back in a custom Table of Practice to conjure the spirit of the cannabis
plant216 , as well as a unique lamen-based pentacle incorporating PGM elements of the spirits of
Saturn and Venus217 , all taking the fundamental techniques and technology of DSIC (based on
Agrippa’s Fourth Book as well as fundamentally Solomonic ideas) and applying them in their own
way. These are by no means pure implementations of DSIC, Agrippa, or Solomonica, but they don’t
have to be, because Satyr Magos (definitely not Christian or Abrahamic) took the fundamental
notions of what was going on, went past the Abrahamic language, adapted DSIC to work within
a Hellenistic pagan and magical method using the same fundamental underlying cosmology, and
made something great with it. Satyr Magos’ work can be seen in figure 70.
216 http://journeythroughtheobsidiandream.com/index.php/2013/07/18/spirits-of-spirits-conjuring-cannabis/
217 http://journeythroughtheobsidiandream.com/index.php/2014/12/20/failure-to-bind/

214
 (a) Table of Practice.

(b) Lamen.

Figure 70: Satyr Magos’ custom Table of Practice and lamen examples.

215
 But at the same time, I also know that Fr. RO took care in specifying what was being done,
as did Satyr Magos. You can’t just slap the names of the Twelve Olympians on top of the seven
planetary angels, because they don’t fulfill the same function. . . unless you know to approach and
conceive of them in that way: that the Olympians preside over the celestial and heavenly forces that
produce creation. (This is the same reasoning, by the way, that allows some people to successfully
adapt DSIC tools to forego the use of the four kings and use the four archangels instead, because
for them, in their manner of working and cosmological need, the four angels fill the same purpose
as the four kings, and depending on how far back you want to reach, as we touched on before, can
be considered interchangeable or identical with them.)
Basically, if you want to adapt DSIC not just in how you design the tools but how you construct
and recite the very prayers of the ritual, you need to be careful that you don’t throw the baby
out with the bathwater. Yes, in order to use DSIC, you do need to buy into the fundamental
cosmological framework upon which DSIC is founded and within which DSIC operates. So long
as you can do that, and recognize what the individual components of the ritual (prayers, divine
names, sigils, symbols, arrangements, etc.) are doing, then you are entirely and absolutely able
to adapt DSIC to your own personal religious or spiritual needs; thus, you could come up with a
Neoplatonic Hellenic DSIC, a PGM-style DSIC, an Islamic DSIC, and any number of other variants
that both click with the underlying framework of DSIC as well as being adjusted to the needs of
specific spiritual or religious traditions. However, even though this boils down to just a change
in aesthetics, extreme caution is still needed that you keep all the things that need to be kept.
Otherwise, you end up either jeopardizing the functionality or safety of DSIC, or end up with
something so completely different that it cannot be considered DSIC anymore.
So, for example, let’s say we wanted to come up with an adaptation of DSIC in the style of
the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM). Honestly, given how some of the texts are phrased in the PGM
itself, the general theist adaptation of the prayers given above would suffice just fine for them; the
only thing it really lacks are strings of barbarous words of power or other humanely-unintelligible
divine names, which we could put in when referring to “the ever-blessed and righteous Trinity” or
“swear upon the blood and righteousness of Christ” or wherever, as necessary. However, the generic
dechristianized prayer adaptation above would work fine. The real issue in getting DSIC to fall
more in line with PGM stuff would be the design of the tools and implements. . . sorta.

• I mean, if you consider the divine names used on the pedestal and wand to just be a type of
generalized barbarous word of power that happens to have Hebrew or Greek origins (much as
the popular barbarous word ΣΕΜΕΣΕΙΛΑΜ comes from Hebrew for “eternal sun”, shemesh
‘olam), and the three symbols on the pedestal/wand to just be forms of characters generally.
I mean, wherever “Tetragrammaton” occurs, you could just keep that but written in Greek
(which wouldn’t be utterly uncommon), or substitute it with ΙΑΩ (which is a Greek rendition
of YHVH, the actual Tetragrammaton). Alternatively, instead of referring to Jesus, one
might call upon Abrasax (whose name, ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ, adds up to 365) as another divine figure,
especially considering that they’re both solar entities at heart.
• The only thing that you might want to consider changing would be the names of the four
angels, four kings, and seven planetary angels. But would that even really be necessary,
either? I mean, there are references to the angels in the PGM, as well, so their inclusion—at
least for the four archangels on the pedestal—in a PGM device would fall within the realm of
plausibility. The four kings, likewise, even though they’re not purely part of PGM, could be
included all the same, or we might substitute them with e.g. my four Solar Guardians of the

216
 Directions218 .
• The seven planetary angels could be substituted with the seven planetary titans (e.g. Hēlios,
Mēnē, Stilbōn) or their corresponding deities (e.g. Apollōn, Artemis, Hermēs), or (using
an alternative interpretation of the DSIC instructions) we could omit the planetary angels
entirely and just use the seals and characters of the planets without making reference to
angels at all. Or, if you wanted to stick with the seven planets, or something related to them,
there are the names of the Fates of Heaven (PGM IV.662—674), the Pole Lords of Heaven
(PGM IV.674—692), and the Images of God (PGM XIII.880—887) we put together when we
discussed the seven stars of both Ursa Minor and Ursa Maior219 , and the seven planets and
how they might relate to each other in a structure of high-cosmic rulership. No characters for
these, it’d seem, but PGM stuff always focused far more by far on names and words of power
than characters generally.
• Instead of using seven planets on the outer ring, depending on whether you consider the planets
the primary celestial generators of the cosmos or the stars, you could use the twelve signs of
the Zodiac instead, perhaps replacing their names and glyphs with those from Demokritos’
Dream Divination ritual from PGM VII.795—845220 .

• For the lamen, the general form could remain the same, perhaps just replacing the string of
divine names on the ring if you wanted something less Abrahamic, even if they still qualified as
barbarous words of power on their own, some of them appearing in the PGM itself—perhaps
using the divine names in the PGM that add up to 9999 (ΦΡΗ ΑΝΩΙ ΦΩΡΧΩ ΦΥΥΥΥ
ΡΟΡΨΙΣ ΟΡΟΧΩΩΙ and ΧΑΒΡΑΧ ΦΝΕΣΧΗΡ ΦΙΧΡΟ ΦΝΥΡΩ ΦΩΧΩ ΒΩΧ, respectively),
the “six names” from the Headless Rite221 (ΑΩΘ ΑΒΡΑΘΩ ΒΑΣΥΜ ΙΣΑΚ ΣΑΒΑΩΘ ΙΑΩ, but
remember that ΙΑΩ is a Greek rendition of YHVH, i.e. the Tetragrammaton itself, ΣΑΒΑΩΘ
a rendition of Tzabaoth, and ΒΑΣΥΜ ΙΣΑΚ can be interpreted as Aramaic or Hebrew for
“in the name [of] Isaac”), or other divine names as desired, especially if they have planetary
connections for the planet of the spirit being conjured. Another good set of names to use
here are those from the Royal Ring of Abrasax: ΦΝΩ ΕΑΙ ΙΑΒΩΚ, ΑΔΩΝΑΙΕ ΣΑΒΑΩΘ, Ο
ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΜΟΝΑΡΧΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ, ΚΡΥΠΤΕ ΑΟΡΑΤΕ ΠΑΝΤΑΣ ΕΦΟΡΩΝ, ΟΥΕΡΤΩ
ΠΑΝΤΟΔΥΝΑΣΤΑ.
• As for general ritual process, I would (of course) recommend my PGM-Style Framing Rite222
as a way to “do the usual” for such a PGM-style DSIC, or parts of it could be used to hack
up a PGM-style DSIC process.

What about if we were to come up with a more Islamic variant?

• Again, although the prayer variation given above works fine, more epithets could be used from
the 99 Names of ‘Allāh, or similar invocations of jinn or spirits from a variety of Islamic texts
on magic could be used.
218 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/classical-hermetic-rituals/invocation-of-the-solar-guardians/
219 https://digitalambler.com/2018/10/10/pole-lords-and-northern-stars-the-names-and-roles-of-the-planets-pole-lords-and-f
220 https://digitalambler.com/2018/05/31/on-the-zodiacal-names-and-characters-of-pgm-vii-795-845/
221 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/classical-hermetic-rituals/the-headless-rite/
222 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/classical-hermetic-rituals/pgm-style-framing-rite/

217
 • Although the Picatrix has two sets of angels for the planets (one used in the lengthy and
beautiful prayers that doesn’t match up with any other system commonly known or used,
another used for the Mirror of the Seven Winds which do match up with what we later find in
sources like Liber Juratus Honorii or the Heptameron), I might recommend instead using the
Shams al-Ma‘ārif instead, which uses a set of angels that’s more well-attested in Islamic and
Arabic planetary magic223 . In my estimation, the seals of the angels could reasonably be kept
the same, changing the names out to be Arabic instead of Latin or Hebrew (or, realistically,
pseudo-Hebrew or Hebrew-derived).
• Jinn lore (cf. these websites224225 on these topics), but also Tewfik Canaan226 describes “four
Heads” or “four Helpers”, spiritual entities who preside over the four directions: Māzar in
the East, Qasūrah in the South, Kamt.am in the West, and T . aykal in the North (though
properly “the sea”). These four serve under (or are served by), respectively, the jinn lords
El-Ah.mar, Shamhūrish, Mudhhib, and Murrah. I’m not sure whether the four Helpers are
better than using the four jinn lords here, because the jinn lords count among their number
the jinn Maymūn—who would later become the Western Amaymon. Within an Islamic or
Arabic context, however, perhaps the four Helpers would be better.

• Canaan above gives four angels for the four directions: Daniā’ı̄l for the East, H . azqiā’ı̄l for the
South, Dardiā’ı̄l for the West, and ‘Asiā’ı̄l for the North. However, I’ve also seen it attributed
that the four main angels in Islamic lore are given such that Azrael (‘Azrā’ı̄l) is given to the
East, Gabriel to the South, Raphael (Isrāfı̄l) to the West, and Michael (Mı̄kā’ı̄l) to the North.
And, to offer another variation, we could use the angels of the planets that rule over the
jinn lords above when connected to the four Helpers, leading to Samsamā’ı̄l (Mars/Tuesday)
for the East, S.arfyā’ı̄l (Jupiter/Thursday) for the South, Rūqayā’ı̄l (Sun/Sunday) for the
West, and Jibraı̄l (Moon/Monday) for the North. Any one of these sets could be used for
the pedestal, though I like using the four main angels, myself, perhaps replacing Azrael with
Uriel (‘Ūriāl).
• I’m not sure what good replacements would be for the divine names used on the wand,
pedestal, or lamen. We know that some of the famous 99 Names of ‘Allāh in Islam have
planetary uses or associations (see the link to the Shams al-Ma‘ārif above), but perhaps
other texts such as the Berhatiah might contain other divine names for consideration.

I don’t mean to say that these are the only possible ways to vary DSIC, or even for these specific
traditions, but they should give some food for thought to those who would want to change DSIC
up a bit to suit other traditions and spiritual practices, without using a fundamentally different
conjuration ritual that involves other or different tools. DSIC, as has been shown in the past 15
years or so, can prove to be a highly flexible system, especially if you play more fast-and-loose with
it as Fr. RO likes to do, because the fundamental technology and approach works to conjure spirits
into crystals. That’s all we’re trying to do; everything else is aesthetics and design choices.

223 https://pentamegistus.blogspot.com/2018/11/sufi-planetary-magic.html
224 https://genies.fandom.com/wiki/Four_Heads
225 https://genies.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seven_Jinn_Kings
226 “The Decipherment of Arabic Talismans”, in The Formation of the Classical Islamic World (vol. 42), Magic and

Divination in Early Islam, ed. Savage-Smith, 2004 Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

218
11 Summary, Recap, and Variations
So, what did we learn from this little blog project of mine we started back in May this year? Let’s
talk about some of the high points and conclusions we can draw, including some stuff that we didn’t
place anywhere else in our earlier discussions:
• The ritual text The Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals (DSIC) is attributed to the Christian
abbot Johannes Trithemius of Spanheim, but was most certainly not actually authored by
him.
• DSIC was first realistically published, despite older origins, in Francis Barrett’s 1801 The
Magus.
• DSIC serves as an implementation of conjuration based on many of the ideas, structure, and
designs provided by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim in his Fourth Book of Occult
Philosophy, referencing other entries in his earlier Three Books of Occult Philosophy.
• DSIC takes Agrippa-style “good spirit” theurgic communion with spirits and combines it with
Solomonic-style conjuration of “evil spirits”, especially from the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano
(which was translated into English and published with Agrippa’s Fourth Book ).
• Some elements of DSIC seem to be more Solomonic in nature and conflict with the Agrip-
pan/theurgic content, and vice versa.
• There are now largely two modern schools of implementing DSIC:
– That of the independently-trained modern Hermetic magician Frater Rufus Opus (Fr. RO)
as he taught its use in his Red Work series of courses (RWC) and, later, his Seven Spheres
(SS) book, which collectively take a fast-and-loose approach that combines or elides some
elements of DSIC in favor of good results fast. Fr. Acher of Theomagica, also an early
adopter of DSIC, falls in line with Fr. RO.
– That of the by-the-grimoire Solomonic magician Frater Ashen Chassan (Fr. AC), who
takes a stricter approach as he teaches it in his book Gateways Through Stone and Circle
(GTSC) to carry out all instructions and designs as close to the letter of DSIC as possible.
• Despite the desire of many to perform ritual texts “by the book” or “to the letter”, oftentimes
without incorporating other grimoires or literary influence, doing so with DSIC is not possible
due to how little is actually specified and how it seems to reference other occult texts.
• The sparseness of DSIC has necessarily led to wide divergence and variability—and as nu-
merous discussions and debates—in how magicians apply DSIC, especially with a popular
resurgence in occult literature and practice generally, especially from non-Western methods
of occult practice that aren’t necessarily Christian or Hermetic in nature, which was the
expected milieu of the audience of DSIC.
• Based on Google searching and analytics, it honestly seems like there wasn’t any modern
interest to speak of (at least, recorded or publicly discussed online) in DSIC up until the end
of the first decade in the new millennium. There is at least one reference to this ritual, or
something close to it, being performed in the 1800s (based on the description of a similar piece
of equipment, the pedestal and crystal, in Frederick Hockley’s Occult Spells: A Nineteenth
Century Grimoire), but little other evidence that the DSIC ritual was ever widely used.

219
 • It is known that Poke Runyon, aka Fr. Thabion, did bring up DSIC in his Ordo Templi
Astarte (OTA) classes at least in the 1990s, but he never went into this text in depth either
in the class or in his texts, presenting it merely as an example of crystal-centric conjurations
of spirits within a more Ars Almadel -focused approach.
• Additionally (hat-tip to the splendid Cole Tucker227 who told me about this after this post
went up originally), Fr. Achad discusses DSIC briefly in chapter IV228 of his 1923 work Crystal
Vision through Crystal Gazing 229 , but only at a high level and in the context of crystallomancy
and the use of scrying crystals generally. Though some people have encountered DSIC by this,
it’s unclear how many or how often that has happened.
• Besides Fr. Achad talking about it and Runyon discussing it, it’s unknown how popular this
ritual was in modern Western occult practice (I can’t find anything online about it) until
late 2006, when Fr. RO began documenting his use of the ritual online and using it in his
RWC and his fundamental angelic conjuration ebook (no longer publicly available), Modern
Angelic Grimoire, and its corresponding goetic text (soon to be republished), Modern Goetic
Grimoire. Heck, it wasn’t even available on Esoteric Archives until April 21, 1999230 (when
I was in, like, fifth or sixth grade). This means that, in reality, the modern application (and
adaptations) of DSIC was essentially pioneered by Fr. RO, with Fr. AC coming onto the scene
later with a refocus on Solomonic grimoire authenticalism/purism/fundamentalism. 231
• As has been shown by Fr. RO and by the actual experiences and implementations of many
who came after him, DSIC is a highly flexible ritual, and given how sparse it is in details and
specifics, it could well be better considered as a ritual template instead of an actual ritual.
This flexibility allows for adaptation, both in terms of tool use, prayer phrasing, and even
the general context of spiritual or religious traditions, so long as a basic understanding of
a hierarchical cosmology and framework of receiving and applying divine authority to work
with spirits is maintained.
• DSIC explicitly calls for there to be two people in the ritual, both a magician who conjures
the spirit and a scryer who facilitates the communication of the spirit with the magician.
– This is exactly in line with the vast majority of Solomonic rituals going back to Hy-
gromanteia and PGM times, if not earlier, which call for scryers or other assistants for
the magician to be present, just in case the spirit appears to someone else besides the
magician.
– This further allows the magician to focus strictly on managing the overall ritual and
temple space, freeing them up to handle any eventualities should and when they occur,
as well as handling other ritual needs such as incense consumption or notetaking.
– However, even though this is a best practice, most modern magicians forego having any
assistants or scryers, since we tend to operate independently and alone. Whether you
227 https://twitter.com/cole_tucker
228 https://hermetic.com/achad/crystal/crystal-vision-chapter-4
229 https://hermetic.com/achad/crystal/index
230 http://www.esotericarchives.com/whatsnew.htm
231 Although not noted in the original post, since the publication of these posts on my blog, I have since found several
other references to Trithemian conjurations or Trithemian-like conjurations from the 1970s and 1980s, generally in
books that discuss various methods of fortune-telling associated with Gypsies and Romani.

220
 as the magician operate alone or with a scryer is up to you, depending on your own
visionary, discernment, perception, and scrying skills.

11.1 Comments and Reflections on the Original Posts

Then there are a few great points that were brought up in the course of the discussions and comments
of these posts:

• From Pallas Renatus on the pedestal232 : if we take the use of the single Hebrew letter Yod
as the single-lettered divine name of God per Agrippa and the hexagram as a generalized
(solar?) symbol of divinity, then the hexagram with central Yod is a sign of the radiating
power and divinity of God into all the cosmos. Placing this symbol upon the pedestal at the
top gives it the centermost and highest symbol of divinity in the whole ritual apparatus: God
radiating power and light downwards into and through the four archangels so as to empower
and elevate, but also constrain and bind, the spirit present within it. It is, in effect, “a bare-
bones form of what the Table of Practice tries to accomplish in [grander] form, but extended
into the third dimension”.
• On Facebook, Erneus from Magia Pragmatica233 mentioned that the “ten general names”
of God from Agrippa (book IV, chapter 6)234 , which are those that form the bulk of the
divine names for the lamen235 , has an earlier origin from St. Jerome in his “De Decem Dei
Nominibus” which he lists as El, Eloim, Eloe, Sabaoth, Elion, Ieje aser Ieje (treated as a
divine name), Adonai, Ia (dominus), Iao (dominus), and Saddai.
• Another great tip from Erneus was that the divine name On (from the wand design) isn’t
a Hebrew name, but a Greek one (το Ων); this on its own wasn’t surprising, but he tipped
me off that Agrippa himself translates On as Eheieh (‫ )אהיה‬in book III, chapter 11236 . This
means that, should one use Hebrew for the three divine names on the wand, you’d end up with
three four-letter divine names: instead of Agla On Tetragrammaton, you’d have AGLA AHYH
YHVH (‫)אגלא אהיה יהוה‬. Along those lines, if one wanted to use something comparable to “Ego
Alpha et Omega” (Revelations 22:13), you could use something like ‫ אני ראשון ואני אחרון‬from
Isaiah 44:6 (“I am the first and I am the last”, aniy r’išōn v’aniy ‘ah.arōn). However, given
232 https://digitalambler.com/2019/05/10/reviewing-the-trithemian-conjuration-the-pedestal-in-all-its-churchy-and-grimoiri

#comment-14988 in which Pallas Renatus wrote:

A thought on the reverse side of the pedestal:
Rather than being purely decorative or space-filling, if we take the Yod to be the single-letter name of
God, à la Agrippa, and the hexagram to be a generalized symbol of Divinity (solar glyphs are always
handy if you have to choose just one), then you’ve basically turned the reverse side of the pedestal into
a miniature cosmological map, focused on the crystal.
One letter, one symbol, one Singular God above, radiating downwards to/through the most basic choir
of angels (or Kings, if that’s your jam), surrounding and empowering the focal point of the ritual. It’s a
bare-bones form of what the table of practice tries to accomplish in Grand form, but extended into the
third dimension.
Which, incidentally, means that when we place the pedestal on the table of practice, this Singular symbol
of Divinity is both the centermost, and highest symbol in the whole production.

233 http://magiapragmatica.blogspot.com/
234 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa4.htm#chap6
235 https://digitalambler.com/2011/06/19/thirteen-holy-names-of-the-lamen/
236 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa3.htm#chap11

221
 the emphasis on Hebrew godnames (with the exception of “Tetragrammaton”), it’s unclear
whether using On itself, either in Roman script or Greek script (ΩΝ) or Hebrew script (‫)ון‬
really should be replaced by a Hebrew translation or not. This is a variant that I’d leave up
to the individual magician to decide on (though I admit I do enjoy the look and feel of having
three four-letter names on the wand, at least if Hebrew is used). However, given the DSIC
author’s familiarity with Agrippa, it can’t easily be explained why they wouldn’t just use a
Hebrew name in this case instead of a Greek, if Agrippa himself equated the two.
• In the post about orienting and setting up the conjuration altar, Fuzzy brought up a point237
about orienting the table (or Table of Practice) separately from the altar; in other words,
regardless which direction the altar is oriented, the table (or Table of Practice) would always
be oriented towards the East (or North, if you’re Fr. RO in SS). To my mind, this would only
really be important if you use the double-ring design of the table (or Table of Practice) that
has a separate ring of names for the four directional entities (four kings or four archangels),
because in the one-ring design, there’s no directionality to be had on the table (or Table
of Practice). It would be weird for me, however, to have the triangle face in any direction
besides away from you—especially if you use this method and face West in a conjuration,
where the triangle would be pointing right at you, which I consider to be energetically and
spatially dangerous. This also does away with the significance of how we arranged the names
of the angels on the pedestal plate, which was meant to line up with the four directions when
facing away from the magician; however, if we use any orientation of the altar besides East,
that would necessarily have to be done away with, unless if we keep the orientation of the
pedestal to the table the same. I’m not sure how I feel about not keeping the table (or Table
of Practice) unaligned with the altar, but that is another valid variation, I suppose, so long
as you’re using a separate piece of equipment for the table (or Table of Practice) instead of it
being the surface of the altar furniture itself.
• On the same post, Aaron Leitch himself chimed in and suggested another option for orienting
the altar of conjuration238 : orient the altar towards the direction of the planet itself. For this,
a skymap, compass, or ephemeris would be used, such that if you were to do a conjuration
of the angel of Jupiter, and the planet Jupiter was positioned towards the north-northeast,
you’d orient the altar towards the north-northeast. This is basically the system used in other
astrological magic texts like the Picatrix. Moreover, Aaron suggests239 that whether the planet
is above or below the horizon would also be significant so as to tap into the ouranic/celestial
237 https://digitalambler.com/2019/06/28/reviewing-the-trithemian-conjuration-orientation-setting-timing-and-lamen-vs-penta

#comment-15188 in which Fuzzy wrote:

I just realized from these pictures that you use a smaller piece for the triangle on top of the Table of
Practice. That’s pretty nice if you plan to vary the direction faced for the conjuration; I don’t know why
I didn’t think of that.

238 https://digitalambler.com/2019/06/28/reviewing-the-trithemian-conjuration-orientation-setting-timing-and-lamen-vs-penta

#comment-15205 in which kheph777 wrote:

I would say the literal meaning here would be to *face* the table towards the east. Though I would
suggest it could also imply setting it in the eastern quarter of the Circle—which would also imply facing
it eastward as well.

239 https://digitalambler.com/2019/06/28/reviewing-the-trithemian-conjuration-orientation-setting-timing-and-lamen-vs-penta

#comment-15205 in which kheph777 wrote:

Another option: Bring up a skymap and see where the Planet actually is in the sky at the time you’re

222
 side of the planet when the planet is above the horizon or its chthonic/subterrestrial side
when below the horizon. This would give an excellent refinement when used in conjunction
with the planetary hour besides simply using a diurnal or nocturnal hour.

11.2 Further Lines of Research

But, even after we’ve discussed so much, there are still a few lingering questions that could still be
answered by others better than me in the future, perhaps after more research or experimentation:

• Who is the true author of DSIC? I consider Barrett himself to be the most likely and obvious
possibility, but it’s unclear whether he plagiarized this himself from another source or offered
it as an original contribution under attribution to Trithemius.
• Was DSIC written more as a distillation/simplification of the Heptameron taking influence
from Agrippa’s Fourth Book, or was it the reverse, that it was written as an implementation
of a combined “good spirit”/”bad spirit” approach from Agrippa, and filling in the gaps with
the Heptameron?
• What were the specific Solomonic influences that led to DSIC? The Heptameron is a clear
influence, but were there others? How wide and how far back can we trace the Solomonic
roots of DSIC?
• What did the original author of DSIC have in mind for the design of the table, notably left
out of the DSIC illustration?
• How widely was DSIC used after its publishing in Barrett’s The Magus, especially when
compared with other forms of conjuration used in Western occulture?
• What would a full, detailed implementation of DSIC look like in a Iamblichean (or otherwise
generally Hellenic) Neoplatonic adaptation? A PGM adaptation? An Islamic adaptation?
• What would a non-Hermetic, non-Solomonic adaptation of DSIC look like? Would such an
adaptation even be possible without relying on a common hierarchical monistic, monolatric,
or monotheistic divine structure?
• What would a full, detailed implementation of Agrippa’s theurgic communion with “good
spirits” look like? His ecstatic communion with “good spirits”? His conjuration of “evil spirits”
to a circle? What other grimoires would most closely resemble Agrippa’s description of such
methods?

• What is the specific Hebrew letter inside the hexagram present on the gold plate, pedestal,
and wand? Fr. RO interprets it as a Yod, Fr. AC interprets it as a Daleth, and Jake Stratton-
Kent interprets it either as a Daleth or Resh. I’m in the Fr. RO camp of interpreting it as
a Yod, which seems to be the most sensible choice, but we all know that Western grimoire
authors and illustrators weren’t always the best at accurately writing the shapes of Hebrew
letters. Regardless of the specific letter used, what is the role of the hexagram with central
working, and set up actually to face it. (If it’s in the sky, you’ll get the celestial aspect. If it’s under the
horizon, you get the chthonic aspect.) I may have said too much. . . lol

223
 letter on the plate, pedestal, and wand in the DSIC illustration? What does the original
author of DSIC mean to signify by it?
• More generally, what is the original, specific role of the three symbols on the pedestal, that of
the hexgram with central letter, pentagram, and cross? Where did these symbols come from?

• I’ve never been satisfied with a simple or high-level answer regarding the role of the four kings,
nor why they would be mixed up in these ritual tools if it’s not a purely Solomonic approach;
after all, Agrippa says nothing about them, even in his Solomonic approach, nor are these
kings used in the Heptameron, so their inclusion suggests another source or influence entirely.
What is their specific role as far as DSIC is concerned? How does that role compare to the
four archangels? What is the nature of this role at all?

11.3 Text-Based Ritual Variations

Now, it’s clear that DSIC, beloved (or not) as it is by many modern magicians and conjurers, isn’t
exactly the most clear, unambiguous, or detailed of texts, and that has led to a number of variations
in how DSIC can be implemented—on top of the normal adaptations magicians make, anyway, due
to laziness, convenience, availability of supplies, or differences in cosmological framework. So, what
about a summary of some of the more reasonable variants that we’ve either encountered or thought
up in our endeavor? We can’t account for every possible variation, but there are a number that
even a strict reading of the sparse text in DSIC allows either due to vagueness or ambiguity in the
text, or merely because it simply doesn’t say:

• Using a quartz as the material for the crystal or using a beryl instead, or some other kind
of crystal appropriate to the working (especially for the planet of the spirit to be conjured,
e.g. citrine or orange calcite for the Sun)
• Using a crystal that’s clear-colored or colored otherwise (probably a light tinge of red, espe-
cially if beryl is used)
• Arranging the three symbols of the hexagram with central Yod, pentagram, and cross with
the divine name “Tetragrammaton” in different orders on the gold plate or in the triangle on
the Table of Practice
• Using the hexagram with a central Yod on just the side of the angels on the pedestal or on
both sides, replacing it with a cross, or using no holy symbol at all
• Using a double circle for the table (or Table of Practice) with one ring of names, or using a
triple circle with two rings of names
• Using any of the following in any order for the planets on the table (or Table of Practice):
name, glyph, characters (either from Agrippa or from the Ars Paulina), number square seal
• Using either one or both of the following for the planetary angels on the table (or Table of
Practice): name, seal (usually from Heptameron) Writing the names of the angels in Latin
script or Hebrew for the table (or Table of Practice), as well as the specific spellings used in
either language based on the source you’re working from (Agrippa, Heptameron, etc.)

224
• The order in which the planets/planetary angels are arranged on the table (or Table of Prac-
tice) in the ring of names
• Writing the table (or Table of Practice) design permanently (e.g. engraving, woodburning,
paint), or just temporarily (e.g. chalk, coal)

• Making the table (or Table of Practice) on a small, portable disc, or actually putting it
onto/into an actual table surface for permanent altar use
• Using only one set of divine names used on the lamen based on the DSIC illustration, or
varying the names in accordance with the general/specific names based on Agrippa
• The specific number of pentagrams used on the lamen if only one spirit is to be called

• Putting the name and seal of the planetary angel in the center hexagram on the lamen, or
putting the name and seal of the planet in the central hexagram with the name and seal of
the planetary angel in one of the pentagrams
• Making the lamens always circular in shape, or shaping the overall form of the lamens in a
shape concordant with its corresponding planet (e.g. triangular for Saturn)
• Using the simple hexagram style of ring, or using the Lemegeton style of ring
• Using just the lamen for the spirit to be conjurated, or using such a lamen in addition to a
separate pentacle (i.e. pentacle of Solomon) in addition to the lamen

• If a separate pentacle is called for, then either wearing the pentacle affixed to the reverse the
lamen or wearing/concealing it separately
• If a separate pentacle of Solomon is to be worn instead of a lamen, then either wearing the
lamen for the spirit, or putting it under the crystal
• Making the lamens in different materials (silver generally, wax, paper or parchment, in metals
appropriate for the planet)
• Using an actual spike-/stake-like brazier or using a tripod brazier for incense
• Using a properly consecrated Liber Spirituum, or just a generic notebook for writing down
information from conjurations

• Having a permanently-drawn magic circle (tarp, tiles, etc.), or just drawing one out in chalk
or coal per conjuration
• Writing the three divine names in the magic circle in different typefaces and facing different
ways, or making them all face the same way in the same typeface

• Orienting the magic circle to align the four hexagrams with the four directions, or orienting
the magic circle such that the quadrant with the spirit’s seal faces the direction of the altar
of conjuration
• Wearing special ritual attire or spirit-specific costume for the ritual, or not

225
 • Engaging in preliminary preparatory practices involving fasting, abluting, purification, prayer,
&c., or not
• Placing the altar of conjuration outside the magic circle, or placing it inside the circle
• Placing the altar of conjuration against a wall or in the middle of a room

• Orienting the altar to face east always, or to face specific directions according to the planet
of the spirit being conjured, or any direction at all that’s convenient
• If using a table (or Table of Practice) separate from the altar of conjuration itself, always
keeping the table (or Table of Practice) aligned to the four directions (if such alignment is
meaningful based on the design) or orienting it in the same direction as the altar of conjuration

• Keeping the altar of conjuration sparse (having only the table and pedestal/Table of Practice,
crystal, and candles), or decorating it with other elements (e.g. tablecloth, more candles,
talismans)
• What time to begin the conjuration, i.e. starting the first prayer within the desired planetary
hour or marking the start of the conjuration itself with the prayer of conjuration
• Interpreting the three parts of the prayer of conjuration to be a single unit of prayer to be
said at once, or each to be said separately in case earlier prayers did not bring the spirit to
the conjuration and we need to spur them on faster.

11.4 Spurious or Other Ritual Variations

And then there are the variations that would or have already been made to account for individual
magician’s divergent approaches to DSIC to account for material availability, personal inspiration,
incorporation of ideas from other texts, a desire to be lazy or convenient, adapting the ritual for
one’s own needs, erroneous understandings of the text carried on as workable practice, etc.:

• Using a crystal, or using another form of scrying medium (mirror, water vessel, etc.)

• Using a crystal shaped like a sphere or in another shape

• Using a crystal that’s entirely clear or has inclusions in it
• Using a gold plate to suspend the crystal, or using gold-like metal e.g. brass
• Using a gold plate in the pedestal, or merely gilding or painting in gold the two sides of the
pedestal
• Using ebony or ivory for the pedestal, or using another material entirely for it
• Making the pedestal in the church-shape (as in DSIC) or the sunburst-shape (as in Hockley’s
Occult Spells)

• Incorporating a hexagram with a central Yod on the pedestal, a cross, both, or neither
• Using a gold band around the crystal instead of a gold plate suspending the crystal

226
• Using a pedestal to support the crystal on top of the table, or using a Table of Practice that
combines the design elements of the pedestal and table upon which the crystal is placed
• For the Table of Practice specifically when not using a separate table and pedestal: using the
four kings (Oriens, Amaymon, Paimon, Egyn) or using the four archangels (Michael, Uriel,
Raphael, Gabriel), or even both

• Incorporating extra elements onto the table (or Table of Practice), e.g. signs and/or angels of
the Zodiac
• Writing the name of the spirit being conjured outside the hexagram/pentagram on the lamen,
or omitting it entirely

• Using ebony for the wand, or using another material entirely for it
• Writing the characters for the wand in gold, or using another material entirely for it
• Using both “Agla COn CTetragrammaton z” as well as “Ego Alpha et Omega” on the wand,
or just the former

• Using a hexagram plus a hexagram-with-central-Yod plus a cross on the wand, or replacing

the empty hexagram with an empty pentagram to match the three signs on the pedestal
• Using a ring of Solomon following the Lemegeton model, the Barrett Heptameron model, or
another ring entirely, such as the Agla Ring of John Dee

• Using two candles for the conjuration, or one, or some other number
• Using candles for the conjuration, or using oil lamps instead
• Consecrating the candles (or lamps) before use, or not consecrating them
• Using an actual brazier for the incense vessel, or using whatever is most convenient

• Using loose incense that would be used on charcoals or in flames, or using self-igniting incense
• Using the magic circle design in DSIC, or using another magical circle design e.g. the one
from the Heptameron
• Using a physical magic circle at all, or just tracing one out with the wand instead

• Incorporating other design elements into the magic circle besides just what’s already there in
DSIC
• Consecrating the various elements and implements used in DSIC beforehand, or not
• Operating with a scryer, or operating alone

• Operating with non-scryer assistants, or not

• Using lamens with multiple spirits on them to bring them all at once to the conjuration,
or using chained summoning to bring them after a primary spirit has been brought to the
conjuration

227
 • Using just the one prayer of conjuration from DSIC for all spirits of all kinds, or using varying
kinds of prayers for specific spirits or specific kinds of spirits for the prayer of conjuration
• Using the Christian-language prayers of the DSIC text itself, or using alternative adaptations
to allow for non-Christian prayers

• Including preliminary calls to one’s holy guardian angel, agathodaimōn, or supernatural as-
sistant

11.5 Recommended Designs of Tools

Before we call it quits, there is one last thing I wanted to share. One of the variations we offered
earlier in the post is a variation on the table that uses a proper “double circle” with but a single
ring of names. It’s something I wanted to return to, but there wasn’t much of an opportunity to
fit in it anywhere else in our discussion. Since I think this is the proper interpretation of the DSIC
instructions, I wanted to give a better-designed version of that that contains the proper design
elements of the planets and the four kings, all written in the Latin script. Thus, the design given in
figure 71 is what I would recommend for use as a table, plus the front (figure 72, three symbols and
Tetragrammaton) and back (figure 73, four archangels) of the pedestal inscriptions. Figure 74 shows
a design that could be used as a Table of Practice, based on some of the variations we discussed
earlier as well, that I think best combines the design elements of the table and the pedestal into a
single piece of equipment, again in the Latin script.
And also, a set of lamens for use with the seven planetary angels, using Latin script for the
names, the names taken from the Heptameron, and using a custom set of divine names on the outer
ring, both general and specific according to Agrippa. These are given in figures 79 through 81.

• I standardized the spelling of all names to use the Latin letter I to render I, J, and Y (thus
“Iehovah”, “Iah”, and “Iod” instead of “Jehovah”, “Yah”, or “Yod”), and likewise the Latin letter
V to render U, V, and W (thus “Vriel” instead of “Uriel”).
• I moved the divine name Tetragrammaton, split as it was before, but inside the triangle,
under the three symbols and above the four archangels. This way, all of the design elements
of the pedestal are now within the triangle entirely, which makes more sense, instead of some
being inside and some being outside.
• I used the seals of the Four Kings from the Clavis Inferni, specifically based on those of
the wonderful mage-artist Asterion of Practical Solomonic Magic240 from his February 2014
post241 . I used the names of the Four Kings from the Clavis Inferni, too, which agrees
more with Agrippa’s spellings from book III, chapter 24242 rather than the spellings in the
Scale of Four from book II, chapter 7243 , though I keep the directional (and thus elemental)
associations from Agrippa rather than the Clavis Inferni. “Maimon” here is used instead of
“Amaymon” because Maimon is better attested in older texts and cuts down on crucial space
usage.
240 http://solomonicmagic.blogspot.com/
241 http://solomonicmagic.blogspot.com/2014/02/four-rulers.html
242 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3b.htm#chap24
243 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap7

228
 • I included two glyphs for each entity in the outer ring on the table/Table of Practice. For
the planetary angels, these are the planetary glyph itself as well as the Heptameron seal for
the angels; for the four kings, these are the elemental glyph associated with their directions
as well as their seal from the Clavis Inferni. This satisfies the requirements of the design of
the table without sacrificing clarity for the sake of space management, interpreting “seals or
characters” for the planetary elements to refer to just the seal of the angels. Although the
DSIC spec only says to include the names of the four kings, I added in the elemental glyphs
and seals for them to make the design consistent between the planetary angels and the kings.
• I changed the direction of the planetary angels and kings on the one ring to start at the
bottom and go clockwise in the proper descending order, starting with Cassiel of Saturn and
going clockwise from there. This actually makes it descending instead of technically ascending
as in the earlier post.
• Though I used the Magical Calendar 244 for the seals for most of the angels, I pulled the seals
for Sachiel of Jupiter and Cassiel of Saturn from the Heptameron of Pietro d’Abano due to
their relative clarity and, in the case of Cassiel, completeness.

• Starting the ring of names at the bottom makes a sort of “gate”, with the most subtle spiritual
force (Saturn) on the left hand and the most dense material force (Earth presided over by
Maimon) on the right hand. This organization, read clockwise, helps not only to draw spirits
into manifestation under all the seven spheres and four corners of the world, but as we gaze
into the triangle from the “bottom”, we can picture our sight “entering in” from the bottom,
swirling around clockwise, and exiting once it makes a full cycle back out to us to bring into
ourselves a manifest vision of the spirit being conjured.

11.6 Personal Recommendations on Implementing DSIC

As for me and my own practice, with any recommendations I might make of my own to implementing
DSIC?

• Ebony, ivory, and gold are fantastic if you can get them, but if you can’t, there are always
workarounds. Their presence certainly helps, but their absence does not impede. Specifically,
while ebony for the wand is ideal, I don’t think the material for the pedestal is at all that
significant (as the text itself gives you a choice between ebony and ivory); the important part
is the gold plate itself. Plus, there are ethical issues involved in either material, with ivory
often being illegally taken and harvested, and ebony increasingly becoming endangered.

• Likewise, no, you don’t need a temple room if you don’t have the space or allowance for one.
It’s great if you can, and definitely something to aim for, but not having a dedicated temple
space is not going to stop you from doing great magic.
• The only reason to use a Table of Practice, in which you (according to the usual interpre-
tations) pick either the four kings or the four archangels but not both, is to avoid using the
pedestal. Even if you can’t go all-out on a full ebony pedestal with solid gold plate, Fr. FC’s
idea of using a simple painted band around the crystal245 is sufficient. The design here matters
244 http://www.esotericarchives.com/mc/index.html
245 http://fraterfc.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-to-trithemius-part-1-tools.html

229
 more than the materials, I’d argue, and the design of the conjuration apparatus as a whole
requires both the four kings and four archangels. However, if you still wanted to forego the
pedestal, you could still reasonably argue for using either set of names.
• The most proper construction of the pedestal for the crystal, as I read and consider it, is
to have the crystal exposed on the front side (with the three symbols and the divine name
“Tetragrammaton”), but gilded or covered with smooth gold on the reverse (the side of the
four names of the angels); this would explain the dark coloration of the crystal orb in the
DSIC illustration that’s not distinct from the color of the plate itself. The two candles should
be placed on either side of the table, pedestal, and crystal and brought forward just a bit, not
directly to the side, so that the light of the two candleflames can enter into the crystal ball,
illuminating and reflecting it as a spherical mirror. This is the most ideal setup; barring that,
with the crystal exposed on the rear of the pedestal, one should have a third candle positioned
directly behind the crystal, in addition to the two burning on the sides (which should still be
positioned a little forward). This latter setup would form a triangle around the crystal, and
would provide light into it evenly from all three directions.
• Make your tools large enough to be useful but not too large so as to sacrifice portability and
flexibility, as always. The specifics are up to you and your comfort.
• Even though DSIC prescribes a specific kind of magic circle (a much-simplified form of the
one used for the Heptameron), I don’t think it fundamentally matters, so long as a circle is
used, even if just one traced on the ground. Using a circle custom for the spirit to be conjured,
however, can be beneficial in both forging a stronger link to the spirit as well as protecting
against said spirit.
• Use a pentacle of Solomon (I’m most in love with the one from the Veritable Clavicles of
Solomon). It shouldn’t be necessary, but it can always be useful, especially if things go
sideways. This pentacle should be worn on the body of the magician; if the lamen of the
spirit is worn, the pentacle should be on the reverse, but otherwise, the lamen should be
placed underneath the pedestal (sized appropriately to fit within the triangle of the table) or
under the crystal (sized appropriately to fit within the triangle of the Table of Practice).
• No need for a scryer if you don’t want one, but it can definitely help. Ditto for assistants.
• Over my own practice, I developed certain prayers for putting on the ring (see section A.2)
and also anointing oneself with oil (see section A.1) before major works like this that I like
using.
• I cannot recommend enough the Prayer of Joseph the Visionary to use before scrying sessions,
the prayer of which was shared once upon a time on Jason Miller’s old blog (see section A.3).
• Likewise, a brief invocation of one’s holy guardian angel, supernatural assistant, agathodaimn̄,
etc. is extremely worth your time, no matter what kind of spirit you’re using. Any such
invocation would work, whether a traditional Catholic prayer, one from the Ars Paulina, or
the one that Fr. RO uses adapted from the Headless Rite246 .
246 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/classical-hermetic-rituals/the-headless-rite/

230
 • Take the preliminary preparation period seriously; don’t skimp on your daily prayers, purifi-
cation, ablution, abstinence, and the like.
• Build up on prior conjurations, especially if you want to take Fr. RO’s extreme methods of
his one-week cycle of “Seven Spheres in Seven Days”, his five-week cycle of going through the
planets in descending order, or a two-week cycle of going through the planets in ascending
order. Avoid heavy banishings done in the temple space beyond asperging with holy water so
as to keep the resonance of previous works around.

Thank you all for sticking with me through this lengthy series of discussions, and I hope you all
enjoyed and learned from what we’ve discovered, discussed, and dreamt up!

231
Figure 71: The author’s recommended table for use with DSIC.

232
Figure 72: The author’s recommended front plate for use with DSIC.

233
Figure 73: The author’s recommended back plate for use with DSIC.

234
Figure 74: The author’s recommended Table of Practice for use with DSIC.

235
Figure 75: The author’s recommended Lamen of Gabriel of the Moon for use with DSIC.

236
Figure 76: The author’s recommended Lamen of Raphael of Mercury for use with DSIC.

237
Figure 77: The author’s recommended Lamen of Anael of Venus for use with DSIC.

238
Figure 78: The author’s recommended Lamen of Michael of the Sun for use with DSIC.

239
Figure 79: The author’s recommended Lamen of Samael of Mars for use with DSIC.

240
Figure 80: The author’s recommended Lamen of Sachiel of Jupiter for use with DSIC.

241
Figure 81: The author’s recommended Lamen of Cassiel of Saturn for use with DSIC.

242
12 Notes from Barrett Himself
So I didn’t intend on writing a postscript so soon to my Reviewing the Trithemian Conjuration
series of posts, the recap post (with index of posts and my own observations) to which went up
literally earlier this week. But, you know, as expansive and detailed as my series may have gone,
I didn’t intend for it to be the final word; I fully expected there to be more to find out. Turns
out, a bit of further direction came out from mukyo65 when they commented on the Four Kings
post,247 directing me (and all of us) to Francis X. King’s 1992 work The Flying Sorcerer, “being the
magical and aeronautical adventures of Francis Barrett, author of The Magus“. It’s a pleasantly
short read, but what draws our attention today is Appendix A, “Barrett’s Hitherto Unpublished
Skrying Manuscript”.
In this “hitherto unpublished” text that mukyo65 directed me to, Barrett gives a whole bunch of
extra technical advice and guidance on how to conjure spirits using DSIC that weren’t mentioned
in the DSIC text itself. His writing style is erratic and weirdly punctuated at times, so when I
quote Barrett, especially for the prayers he mentions, I’ll update it for both modern diction as well
as punctuation and style rules, keeping as close to the original as otherwise possible.

Astrological Considerations
• The time of conjurations should be chosen through the rules of electional astrology, not just
according to planetary hour. However, once the spirit is contacted, we may ask them for what
seasons and times are best to contact them in beyond electional dates or planetary hours.
• Thus, the planet associated with the spirit should “be in an Angle and strong”, i.e. the planet
associated with that spirit should be in houses I, IV, VII, or X and dignified, or at the least
not afflicted by an ill aspect or other ill accident.
• Your own significator should not “be under the Earth but in as fortunate a part of heaven
as can be convenient”. In this case, according to King, this should be interpreted that the
planet of the sign rising in your own natal horoscope should be above the horizon (i.e. in
houses VII through XII) when the conjuration is performed and dignified. An alternative
approach would be to either use your almuten rather than your lord of the ascendant as your
significator, or to use the planet ruling the sign rising at the moment of the conjuration be
considered as your own significator, all situated according to the same rules above.
• The Moon should be waxing at the time of the conjuration.
• The Moon should not be combust when you work. According to the English astrologer William
Lilly248 , this is when the Moon is within 8◦ 300 of the Sun in the same sign as the Sun or within
12◦ of the Sun regardless of sign. To be safe, I would interpret this as saying that one should
not perform a conjuration starting 24 hours before the moment of the New Moon and until
24 hours after the moment of the New Moon.
247 https://digitalambler.com/2019/05/13/reviewing-the-trithemian-conjuration-four-kings-or-four-angels/

#comment-14998 in which mukyo65 suggested:

Great post I’m really enjoying this detailed series as well as your other posts. I find it interesting
that Barrett himself simplified the process by using a copy of the Bible on which to place the crystal,
according to instructions he wrote, published in Francis King’s The Flying Sorceror. I’d be interested
in your thoughts?

248 https://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/combust.html

243
Considerations of Place
• Perform the conjuration “in some retired place at a distance from your house, rather than in
your own chamber”, but he also says that it doesn’t really matter. He notes that spirits are
“sooner attracted to an unfrequented place than to appear in a house”.

• Success in conjuration of the spirit depends on a number of factors, especially those related to
the spirit and planet that rule over the place in which you do the conjuration. Thus, not only
should the planets of the spirit you’re conjuring and of your own natal horoscope be dignified,
but so too should that of the place of conjuration itself. On top of that, the planets of your
own natal horoscope and of the place of conjuration itself should be in a good relationship to
each other, either by essential nature or by accidental relationship according to the horoscope
at the moment of conjuration.
• We should set everything up as best we can according to the the planet and the spirit of the
place wherein the conjuration is to take place. This includes the choice of suffumigations and
the spirit we’re to conjure itself; we shouldn’t conjure a spirit of Mars in a place ruled by the
Moon, for instance, if Mars and the Moon are in a bad aspect to each other.

• Likewise, we should choose places that agree with us in terms of our own ruling planets. King
explains this point succinctly: “[Barrett] seems to have been suggesting that if a city was
ruled by a particular zodiacal sign the magus should not carry out invocations therein unless
his significator, the planet ruling the ascendant of his nativity, was strong or exalted in that
sign.”

Considerations of Preparation
• One should consume no “animal food” (presumably meat) for 24 hours before the conjuration,
and likewise no alcohol whatever until after sunset, “and then only sufficient to clear nature
and refresh thy Body”.

• The conjuration should be preceded by seven days of fasting and abstinence, specifically from
“all heavy rich and strong drink”, eating nothing between sunrise and sunset each day but
breaking fast on bread and water after sunset.
• A preparatory prayer should be recited seven times on the day of the conjuration before the
ritual itself. This same prayer may also be recited every morning for the seven days preceding
the conjuration.

Other Considerations

• Put a “new clean linnen cloth on the table under the Chrystal”. Basically, use an altarcloth,
but drape it so that it covers the table itself upon which the pedestal is placed; the table
should not be exposed.
• The smoke of the incense should be “strong and plenty”. (I doubt most people would have an
issue with this.)

244
 • Barrett says that you should have “some clean white paper or Virgin parchment to write down
the name of the Spirit, his Planet Sign and character which he may shew you”. Nothing is
said or mentioned of a Liber Spirituum.
• Keep the character and name of the spirit free from all profanity and pollution (or, in other
words, keep the lamen of the spirit protected, safe, and untouched by any unless they’re in a
state of purity).
• Do not touch the crystal with your hands after placing it on the table. (This seems to go
directly against the DSIC instruction for consecrating the crystal; perhaps one should instead
hold their hand above or over the crystal rather than directly on it?)

• Do not engage with the spirit you’re conjuring longer than an hour. After an hour has passed,
give the license to depart to the spirit.
• The conjuration medium may be a (presumably quartz) crystal, a “smooth shining steel
Mirror” (steel?!), or a (crystal of) beryl. Barrett treats all three of these mediums as in-
terchangeable and as equally sufficient for conjuration; beryl wasn’t surprising to us earlier,
given Frederick Hockley’s mention of it as well as Agrippa’s description of it being as lunar
as quartz is, as well as the historical fact that beryl was used to make early eyeglasses with
when glass could not be made sufficiently clear. Using steel for the mirror, however, comes
across as a shock, as steel is a variant of iron, which tends to be inimical to most spirits.
• If you do not succeed in conjuration of one spirit, try another spirit. Barrett gives the example
of “if you try the first time under Jupiter let your next work be under Mars or Venus or Mercury
or the Moon”.
• The prayer of conjuration in the ritual itself should be recited not once but seven times.
What we can tell from the above is that Barrett placed a huge emphasis on astrology, specifi-
cally electional astrology, in determining specific times to perform conjuration. While most people
nowadays (and arguably many earlier Solomonic magicians besides) content themselves with just
following the planetary hours and days, Barrett seems to make a point of making sure that the
planet associated with the spirit should be as strong as could be reasonably attained according to
celestial position and accidents. This also included astrologically understanding the very place of
where we conjure the spirit itself, which is a consideration most people likely wouldn’t consider to
be as important, yet Barrett himself clearly did. Barrett also takes a staunchly Christian approach
to make sure that the magician performing the conjuration is as worthy as possible for the work,
not unlike many of the admonitions of the Arbatel249 .
Barrett also gives a little instruction that makes things interesting:

Meditate Day and night on what you desire to know, have ready Pen and Ink—
perfumes—the Virgin parchment—2 wax candles and 2 clean candlesticks, and a small
earthen dish with lighted charcoal, likewise the Pentacle of Solomon which you ought
to draw out as describ’d in the Magus upon a piece of Virgin Parchment likewise the
Name Tetragrammaton wrote upon a piece of Vellum fastened round your Forehead like
a wreath.
249 https://digitalambler.com/2018/09/11/on-the-arbatels-principles-of-magic/

245
 The bit about the pentacle of Solomon ties in with what we mentioned before when we discussed
setting up the altar, and the latter about the wreath agrees with Agrippa (book IV, chapter 10) in his
description of the ecstatic method of contacting good spirits: “You shall also have a veil of pure clean
linen, and in the fore-part thereof let there be fixed golden or gilded Lamens, with the inscription
of the name Tetragrammaton” and “that always as often as he enters into the Circle, he have upon
his forehead a golden Lamen, upon which there must be written the name Tetragrammaton“. This
means that the “pentacle” described in DSIC may well not have been referring to the lamen of
the spirit to be conjured at all, but an actual pentacle of Solomon. Plus we should be using a
Tetragrammaton-engraved crown, which ties this ritual in more with the usual Solomonic practices.
But Barrett has even more surprises in store for us. He gives us this instruction regarding one
of the supplies and processes for preparing ourselves and our equipment for conjuration:

Have ready a small new phial filled with clear Oil—olive with which you must anoint
your eyelids and palms of both hands—and when all is ready make a small cross upon
the flat side of the Chrystal where the Characters are and turn the convex side towards
thy face—let it be placed between the two lights. . .

Okay, so we need a new bottle of clear, pure olive oil, with which we anoint our eyelids and
palms of our hands before the conjuration; easy enough. But then he goes on to describe that the
crystal itself should be anointed with the same oil, but note how he describes it: there’s a flat side
to the crystal, so Barrett here seems to suggest that the crystal should be round on one side and
flat on the other, i.e. a hemisphere. The flat side should be put on the side with “the Characters”
(i.e. the hexagram with central Yod, the pentagram, the cross, and the name Tetragrammaton);
this would make the round side put on the side that has the names of the four archangels. We are
then to have the crystal oriented such that the round side facing the magician.
This goes against what we decided earlier in our DSIC discussions in several ways. DSIC says
that the crystal is to be “globular or round each way alike”, i.e. a total sphere, round on all
sides. While the pedestal design itself doesn’t change in terms of what names and characters need
to be engraved on it, it does kinda throw in our idea of having Michael on top, Gabriel on the
right, Raphael on the bottom, and Uriel on the left into disarray; I earlier decided on this because
that’s how the DSIC illustration itself shows the plate, and if we were to face this side away from
us, Gabriel would be technically on our left and Uriel on our right when facing away from us,
which would put Gabriel in the North and Uriel in the South, in agreement with the directional
associations given by Agrippa’s Scale of Four (book II, chapter 7)250 . That reasoning falls apart,
however, if that’s the side that we’re supposed to face toward us instead of away from us, which
is incredibly obnoxious. We could just flip Gabriel and Uriel so that Gabriel would be engraved
on the left of the plate holding the crystal and Uriel on the right if we wanted to preserve those
directional associations, I suppose; I don’t think it fundamentally matters since, after all, the order
in which the names are presented in the DSIC text don’t match up with the order in which they’re
displayed on the DSIC plate. I suppose we might have just been reading too much into the DSIC
design, neat though it was.
Still, Barrett’s notes here clearly state that the side with the angels should face the magician
and not away from them, yet it also says that the crystal should have a flat side, too, which doesn’t
match up with what DSIC says at all, which is that it should be totally spherical and round on
all sides. If we assume that DSIC was written by Barrett, then this suggests either that Barrett
250 http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap7

246
changed his approach or used a variation of the tools proposed in DSIC itself, but this could also
be a major sign that Barrett himself wasn’t the original author of DSIC (despite all suggestions
that he did). This also means that the crystal should be exposed on both sides, the round side
so that we can gaze into it and the flat side so that we can anoint it, and not covered with gold
leaf on one side. This throws out our whole parabolic/spherical mirror idea for the candlelight to
enter into the exposed front of the crystal and bounce off the gilded and round rear of it, at least in
terms of Barrett’s application of the ritual—though the crystal being exposed on both sides does
match up with pretty much everyone who’s ever applied DSIC, either in terms of using a crystal
ball without a pedestal at all (for those in the Fr. RO camp) or those who use a pedestal with the
crystal exposed on both sides (for those in the Fr. AC camp).
But this isn’t even the most surprising part of what Barrett says about the DSIC tools; of all
the notes that Barrett provides, it’s this that I found most gobsmacking and flabbergasting:

You may omit the table on which the/chrystal is placed mentioned in the Magus with
the wand which I never use—but instead sett the instruments upon the holy Bible saying
[the] Consecration of the Place whereon the bible and Chrystal is sett. . .

Like. . . is he for real? The table—that contentious contraption that we spent so long discussing—
can just outright be omitted and replaced with a Bible? This lends some credence to the idea I had
way back when that we could just use a monstrance and put it on top of a Triangle of Art from
the Lemegeton Goetia, but this goes even beyond that. Then there’s also his remark that he never
even uses the wand! For all the hassle of designing, creating, and consecrating the damn thing, for
Barrett to say that “I never use” the wand should come as a massive shock to many DSIC-using
magicians. If anything, I want to interpret this as using the wand as a tool of intimidation and
force, in the same vein as a Solomonic sword—again, more evidence against Fr. AC’s argument
that it’s not such a tool at all. It’s also in line with Fr. RO’s suggestion that the wand simply isn’t
necessary, but it does raise the question of what Barrett would use to trace the circle out with—if
he ever did at all, or if he ever even used a circle at all, which he doesn’t describe in this text (he
mentions a circle only once in passing, and that with no further explanation). It also recalls that
Agrippa never used a circle in his primary means of contacting “good spirits” (book IV, chapter
10).
Back to the bit about replacing the table with a Bible. Note that I don’t think this approach
would be preferred if one were using a Table of Practice, i.e. a platform for the crystal that contains
the design elements of both the pedestal and the crystal, but so long as one had the pedestal that
held the crystal, one could replace the table entirely with a Bible. This means that—if Barrett
himself was adapting the ritual for his own ends—then the table itself is nonessential, so long as the
pedestal/crystal was put on something holy. It could be the Sigillum Dei Aemeth (see figure 82)251 ,
it could be a Bible, it could be John Dee’s version of the Sigillum (see figure 83) or his own square
Table of Practice (see figure 84), an almadel from the Ars Almadel (see figure 85), or the Table of
Practice of the Ars Paulina (see figure 86), whatever! I’ll note here, though, that in this case, the
only names of four entities present on the tools then are those of the four archangels—and not the
four kings. We know that the four kings (Oriens, Paimon, Egyn, Amaymon) are what the DSIC
text (most likely) mean when it comes to the design of the table, that’s absolutely true, but let’s
be honest: it’s evident, with ten years of modern practice being extant plus Barrett’s own notes
included, that it doesn’t matter either way whether you focus on the four directional/elemental
251 http://www.esotericarchives.com/juratus/aemeth_jhp_ssm_s.jpg

247
entities being angelic or demonic. To me, this is a strong piece of evidence that four entities of
some sort (whether demonic or angelic) are necessary for the materialization or manifestation of
the spirit in the crystal, and that the four archangels perform this function just fine on their own
just as the four usual kings would.
Going back to the manuscript, Barrett gives the following consecration to be said above the
Bible upon which the pedestal and crystal are placed:

In the name of the Holy and Blessed Trinity, I consecrate this Table by virtue of the
Holy Bible that contains the Word of the Eternal Wisdom, and by the Holy Tables of
the Law given unto Moses upon Mount Sinai, so that no evil thing may enter herein to
die, hurt, or prejudice anyone. Bless, o Lord, all these instruments and experiments for
the sake of your son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Although we didn’t have a prayer or consecration process for the table earlier in our talk when
we discussed making everything, this prayer could easily be amended to be used for consecrating
the table, which might indeed be useful (and reflects Barrett’s repeated injunctions for everything
to be consecrated before use). Barrett also provides several other prayers to be used which differ
slightly from those in DSIC proper, such as the prayer of conjuration itself, which should be recited
seven times (note his reference to using the Bible instead of a table as described by DSIC):

In the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost do I conjure
you, o you spirit NN., by him who spoke the Word and it was done; by him who is the
beginning and the end, the first and the last; by the Creation of the World and by the
Last Judgment; that you, o NN., appear to me visibly in this crystal. By the virtue
of the Holy Bible on which it is placed, give me true answers concerning those things
which I desire to know and be informed of; instruct me truly and show us our desire
without any guile or craft. This I do conjure you quickly to do by the virtue of God
who shall come to judge the living and the dead and the World by Fire. Amen.
I conjure and exorcise you, o NN., by the Sacrament of Christ’s Body, by his Miracles,
by the Sea, by the Earth, by all the things above and under the Earth and all their
virtues, by the seven planets, by the seven spirits which stand before the face of God,
by the great name of God Tetragrammaton El-Ousin Agla, by all the names of God holy
and blessed and all their virtues, by the Circumcision and Baptism and Passion and
Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Blessed Lord and Redeemer at whose name
the devils tremble, by his name Emmanuel Messias, by all the good and holy names of
the blessed Trinity in Unity! I invoke you, o NN., that you quickly appear in this crystal
visibly and with a plain and intelligible voice; show me those things which are proven
for me to know, and answer and inform me of these things that I may propose to you
through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

Note the godnames “Tetragrammaton El-Ousin Agla”. This is almost what we see on the wand,
which is “Tetragrammaton On Agla”, but with “On” replaced by “El-Ousin”. As I discussed in
my Wand of Art writeup252 when I made my own wand, “On” is a Greek word meaning “being”
or “existing thing”, i.e. The Existent or The One. “Ousin”, in this case, is another Greek word,
which should probably better be written as “Ousia”, a term meaning “substance” or “essence” or
252 https://digitalambler.com/materia/wand-of-art/

248
Figure 82: Joseph H. Peterson’s rendition of the Sigillum Dei Aemeth.

249
Figure 83: John Dee’s version of the Sigillum Dei Aemeth.

250
Figure 84: John Dee’s Enochian Table of Practice.

251
Figure 85: The almadel of the Ars Almadel.

252
Figure 86: The Table of Practice from the Ars Paulina.

253
“the primary substratum underlying reality”. “El-Ousin” (or “El-Ousia”) combines this term with
the Hebrew term for God; this then could be interpreted as “The Divine Essence Itself”. To my
mind, “On” and “El-Ousin” are equivalent and interchangeable.
The prayer above for the conjuration is followed in King’s Appendix A by a prayer for a license
to depart, after reciting which one is to “repeat the Prayer in the Magus returning thanks to God
with any additional prayers or Psalms thou mayest think proper”:

God has appointed you a place; go in his name to wherever you belong, and be ready
to come when I call you in his name to whom every knee in Heaven, upon the Earth,
and under the Earth bows. I give you license to depart in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost.

There’s also a lengthy prayer included by King in the notes to this appendix, which “was used,
or intended to be used, at the beginning of a rite for the invocation of a Saturnian and/or Martial
spirit—or so I suppose from the fact that the ‘perfumes’ for the rite included sulphur, hellebore and
euphorbium and that the operation was intended to take place in the planetary hour dedicated to
Mars”, but which is written in a confused and rambling way. This prayer (the “preparatory prayer”
mentioned in the considerations earlier in this post) is what Barrett says should be recited seven
times before the conjuration ritual itself and which may be recited every morning in the seven days
leading up to the conjuration. King says that the original prayer was written with such random and
erratic punctuation that he tried reforming it to what he presumes to be its original; I’ve modified
it further to make it make a little more sense, myself, both for punctuation and slight wording.

Almighty and most merciful Lord God, I am your poor, humble, and unworthy Ser-
vant, being an admirer of Wisdom, a votary of Science, and student of Knowledge of
the Creator, desirous of true spiritual light, although a Worm subject to the frailties,
wickedness, temptations, and casualties of the flesh. Grant, o great Jehovah, that I may
this night see by thy divine Will and wonderful Power those spirits that may inform me
of of those things, good and wholesome for my soul, that may be beneficial to me in my
mortal and corruptible state. Grant these things, o most beneficent Being, to me, being
desirous of holy things and willing to pursue the paths of Knowledge and true Wisdom.
O Lord, I beseech you to forgive my sins and mercifully incline your heavenly ear to
my petition, which I now with my whole heart, soul, and mind offer to you and beseech
you to take away the cloud of sensuality and dullness that I may clearly behold the
spirit I invoke this day; this I earnestly pray, thinking nothing better for a man in this
world than to be informed of things above corruption and to enjoy the sublime benefit of
seeing spiritually and conversing with your blessed intelligence. But this I know myself
unworthy of, as I am a fleshly creature. But, o God, as your Son, Jesus Christ, says:
“whatsoever ye ask, that shall ye receive”; so, most mighty God, I, being one man, ask
to receive divine illumination by the ministry of your spirit, a pure spirit, with whom I
desire to see openly and fully to converse this day, o God. Grant, great Jehovah, that
I may be taught Wisdom by this said spirit this day and that no evil spirit whatsoever
may have power to come in the name of the good spirits to deceive me to the ruin of
the health of my soul. O most mighty God, I beseech you to pardon this my imbecility
in thinking myself capable of making myself heard; but, as I ask, let me receive as my
intentions are. So let me be answered!

254
 I know my own unworthiness, o Lord; great are my sins and iniquity; they are more than
the hairs upon my head. But, o Lord God Almighty, if I have found any favor in your
sight, if my anxious longing after Knowledge and true Wisdom or my anxious endeavors
to acquire it be pleasing to you, o Fountain of Life and Light and Wisdom, then let
one of your spirits descend and make known to me what course I should pursue. O
almighty and merciful Jehovah, I wish through the medium of a gross and earthly body
to exert that spark of your divine Essence which I believe you did formerly breathe into
our nostrils with the Breath of Life; enable me, o God Almighty, to conquer those bad
passions which every day rise in my heart. Let the Blood of Christ be an atonement
for my sins, and grant that I, o Lord, who am a disciple of Wisdom, should attain
knowledge and destroy those seeds sown by our human nature.
O God, grant I may be rapt up in the divine Vision of your holy Spirit through Jesus
Christ, who sacrificed precious and immortal Blood upon the Cross. Enable me, o Most
High, to immediately become a servant of your Will and an instrument curing the sick
and the diseased, of relieving the distressed and fortifying the afflicted, doing all the
good that may be made. Amen.
O Lord Jesus Christ, I earnestly beseech you to intercede with the Father on my behalf.
Be pleased, o most merciful God, Ruler of all things visible and invisible, to grant my
petitions and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Let him descend this day and make
known those things I desire, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Honestly, I wish I had read this text sooner, or at least had known about it before I wrote many
of my earlier DSIC posts. There’s plenty of stuff that Barrett has written for us that we can easily
(or not-so-easily) incorporate into our earlier discussions as extra guidance and advice, but there’s
also a lot of stuff here that doesn’t match up. I don’t think that what Barrett says above invalidates
any of our earlier practices, but I also can’t really say that Barrett is wrong, since Barrett is the
source (in one way or another) of DSIC at all, and we’re getting Barrett’s own insights on how to
use DSIC. Frustrating as it might be, the wrenches that Barrett throws into our earlier discussions
are still enlightening; if nothing else, what we discussed earlier could be considered a “purer” form
of DSIC practice, or at least another variant of it, if we assume that Barrett indeed didn’t create
DSIC to include in The Magus. It certainly gives us all more food for thought in how we approach
DSIC and how far we want to take it in terms of either its Agrippan influences or its Solomonic
ones.
I think I was successful when I set out to write my DSIC posts to answer many of the questions
surrounding this ritual text, although I know I also left some questions that remain to be answered.
The process of research isn’t always linear, and the discovery and review of Francis King’s work
about Francis Barrett shows just that; this text answers many questions, including some that I
thought were sufficiently answered before, but it also raises just as many other questions, including
calling into question some of my own conclusions. If nothing else, this should help other magicians
get involved and try out different designs, approaches, and uses for DSIC, whether they incorporate
Barrett’s own notes or not.

255
A Other Prayers
A.1 Prayer of Anointing
Source: https://digitalambler.com/prayers/prayer-of-anointing/

Almighty God, Creator of all things, Lord, King, Master, Helper, hear me!
As I anoint myself with this oil,
so too anoint my body, soul, spirit, and mind
with your grace, mercy, forgiveness, power, strength, wisdom, patience, authority, and
light.
As I come before you now and call on your holy name,
help me, o Lord, that I may come to see you, hear you, know you, and be with you,
that I may align my will with yours,
that I may know my True Will,
that I may carry out your Will,
that I may go where I must go,
know what I must know,
do what I must do,
and become what I must be.
Whatever flaws there may be in my body,
mend them and help me mend them.
Whatever gaps there may be in my soul,
close them and help me close them.
Whatever holes there may be in my spirit,
fill them and help me fill them.
Whatever cracks there may be in my mind,
seal them and help me seal them.
However I am imperfect, o Lord,
make me perfect in my imperfections,
that I may come to see you, hear you, know you, and be with you,
that I may come to walk in your path, at your side, in your footsteps.
Amen.

While anointing the forehead, temples, palms, wrist, chest, or other parts of the body, first recite
Psalm 23. After this, recite the above prayer. Follow up with any other prayers as desired.

256
A.2 Prayer of the Ring
Source: https://digitalambler.com/prayers/prayer-of-the-ring/

I don the ring and step into my role as mage, as priest, as shaman, as holy one, as
intermediary between the worlds.
I don the ring and am made protected by the archangel Michael, prince of the heavenly
host and guardian of the Light, and the holy Father, the Lord of Hosts, YHVH
Tzabaoth.
I don the ring and rend the veil between the worlds, and step out of this world into the
ever-present Moment, the eternal Now.
I don the ring to accomplish my will.
I will to . . .
I am here to accomplish my will.
My body is here.
My soul is here.
My spirit is here.
My mind is here.
I am here to accomplish my will.
My will be done, God willing.
Amen.

Recite the above prayer while donning the ring. When reciting “rending the veil between the worlds”,
make a gesture of separating with the hands in three dimensions (hands splitting apart once with
one hand going to the left and the other to the right, once with one going up and one going below,
and once with one going before you and one behind you); this particular gesture was inspired by
Jason Miller’s 2009 The Sorcerer’s Secrets. At “I will to . . . ”, state your intent for the ritual to
follow. After this prayer is compelte, follow up with any other prayers for guidance, sight, and
authority, then begin the working.

257
A.3 Prayer of Joseph the Visionary
Source: http://strategicsorcery.blogspot.com/2008/07/joseph-visionary.html

Cleanse my hidden mind with the hyssop of your grace

For I draw near to the holy of holies of your mysteries
Wash me from all my understanding of the flesh
and may an understanding of the spirit be mingled with my soul
Cause to reside in me a faith that percieves your mysteries,
so that I may percieve you as you are, and not as I am.
Create in me eyes that I may see with your eyes,
what I cannot see with my own
My every bodily image be wiped from my minds eye
and may you alone be recognised before the eye of the mind.
Amen.

258
B Old Angelic Conjuration Ritual
This section presents the older, more “pure” Fr. RO-based conjuration ritual based on his RWC
texts. This, originally published in June 2011253 , was my first attempt at customizing and adapting
DSIC as I had it at the time, and is here presented for posterity as a close approximation of what
Fr. RO himself used.

Below is a ritual of conjuration based on Johannes Trithemius’ “Art of Drawing Spirits into
Crystals” and the “Clavicula Solomonis”, both available at the Esoteric Archives. I’ve modernized
the language and format and style, but the ritual itself is simple: a series of prayers that consecrates
the tools and area, a conjuration of the spirit into the area, a chat with the spirit, and then the
leave to depart. It’s a simple ritual and can be adapted or abbreviated in many ways. Trithemius
supposedly developed the ritual as an implementation of the guidelines and suggestions present in
Cornelius Agrippa’s “Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy”.
The following tools are required for the ritual. An example conjuration altar is shown in figure 87
using my own materia and setup.

• A type of summoning circle cum triangle called the Table of Practice

• Wand

• Crystal ball or other scrying medium, such as a bowl of water or mirror

• A pentacle to be worn around the neck called a Lamen, with the spirit’s name and seal, drawn
or printed on virgin parchment (clean paper) in an appropriate planetary day and hour (if
applicable)

• Incense appropriate to the spirit (if applicable)

• White candle, consecrated or blessed if possible

A notebook and pen are helpful for having with you as well to record the ritual or take notes
from the spirit, and a candle snuffer is nice if you don’t want to blow out the candle. Trithemius
also suggests a physical magic circle with names of God and the seal of the spirit, a Solomonic ring
to be worn with the lamen, and a partner to conjure the spirit with as a kind of magical spotter or
medium. All these are not strictly necessary, however. The parts that are necessary for the ritual,
though, do not need to be distinct pieces of equipment; a chalk circle written with the appropriate
names and symbols will suffice for the Table of Practice, as can the extended index finger for the
Wand.
Since Trithemius (the attributed author of the ritual) was a Christian abbot, and since most
magic performed in medieval and Renaissance Europe was propagated and performed by Christian
priests, the original ritual is replete with invocations to Jesus Christ. Although not a Christian,
I’ve used the same prayers to good success, but I can understand why it might be distasteful in
the mouths of others. I’ve altered the prayers based on the Keys of Solomon, Heptameron, and
other sources to make the ritual less Christian and more Qabbalistic or Jewish, but either works.
I haven’t experimented with Gnostic or pagan godnames, but I don’t see what would prevent one
from working with those in this ritual.
253 https://digitalambler.com/rituals/angelic-ritual-of-conjuration/

259
 Figure 87: An early simple conjuration altar.

Perform the ritual in a day and hour appropriate to the spirit you’re conjuring or under otherwise
favorable conditions. Purify yourself before the ritual as you find necessary (ablutions, fasting,
meditation, contemplation, prayer etc.). Lay out the tools on a clean and cleansed area, positioning
the candle to the east, or another direction as necessary.
Light the candle.
I conjure you, o creature of fire, by him who created all things both in heaven and
earth and in the sea and in every other place whatsoever, that you cast away every
phantasm from you, so that no hurt whatsoever shall be done in any thing. Bless, o
Lord, this creature of fire, and sanctify it that it may be blessed, and that it may burn
for your honor and glory, so neither the enemy nor any false imagination may enter into
it. Amen.254
If you have one, put on the ring; pray as you will for guidance, protection, and wisdom. Put on the
lamen, charging or intoning the names written on it if desired. Begin the ritual of conjuration.
O God, author of all good things, I beseech you, strengthen me, your poor servant, that
I may stand fast without fear through this dealing and work. Enlighten me in my dark
understanding, o Lord, so that my spiritual eye may be opened to see and know your
angelic spirits descending here into this crystal.255
254 This and the consecration of the incense seem to be taken verbatim from the Heptameron.
255 Or whatever scrying medium you prefer to use (mirror, bowl of water, etc.).

260
Lay your hand on the crystal.

O inanimate creature of God, be sanctified, consecrated, and blessed, so that no evil

phantasy may appear in you, and that all spirits within you speak intelligibly, truly,
and without the least ambiguity. Amen.
And as I stand before you, o Lord, grant me the power of scrying those celestial spirits
or intelligences that may appear in this crystal, and enable me, by your wisdom and
mercy, to use whatever good gifts you may be pleased to bestow on me to the honor of
your holy name. You, who live and reign, world without end. Amen.

Wear the lamen around your neck. Take up the wand and trace a circle around your area of
conjuration.

In the name of the thrice-holy Tetragrammaton Elohim Tzabaoth, I consecrate this piece
of ground for my defense, so that no evil spirit may have power to break these bounds
prescribed here. Amen.

Light the incense. Point the wand at the incense.

I conjure you, o creature of fire, by him who created all things both in heaven and earth
and in the sea and in every other place whatever, that you cast away every phantasm
from you, so that no hurt whatsoever shall be done in any thing. Bless, o Lord, this
creature of fire, and sanctify it that it may be blessed, and that it may fill up this place
with the power and virtue of its odors, so neither the enemy nor any false imagination
may enter into here. Amen.

Hold the wand out towards the crystal. Now we get to the actual conjuration.

In the name of the blessed Tetragrammaton,256 I call upon you, you strong and mighty
angel Michael,257 if it be the divine will of the most holy God that you take the shape
that best shows your celestial258 nature, and appear to me visibly here in this crystal,
and answer my demands in as far as I shall not transgress the bounds of divine mercy
by requesting unlawful knowledge, and that you graciously show me what things are
most profitable for me to know and do, to the glory and honor of his divine majesty,
who lives and reigns, world without end. Amen.
Lord, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Make clean my heart within me,
and take not your holy spirit from me.
O Lord, by your name I have called Michael; suffer him to administer unto me, and that
all things may work together for your honor and glory, and that to you be ascribed all
might, majesty, and dominion. Amen.
O Lord, I thank you for the hearing of my prayer, and I thank you for having permitted
your spirit to appear unto me. Amen.
256 Or whatever names of God or deities you feel appropriate for the ritual, e.g. Elohim Tzabaoth to conjure a spirit

from the sephirah of Hod, or Adonai ha Aretz or Adonai Melech for a sublunar spirit; Iaō or the expanded Aeēiouō
work as well.
257 Or whatever the name is of the spirit you’re summoning.
258 Or whatever nature the spirit has (elemental, natural, chthonic, etc.).

261
At this point, the spirit should be present. Ask whether there’s someone present, and if so, ask
the spirit its name and verify that it is the spirit you conjured in a way you see appropriate. If
it answers correctly and truly, go ahead and have a polite chat with it. The spirit may give you
inklings of thought or images in your mind or actual eyes, you may hear whispers, or you may just
sense words forming out of nowhere; it’s up to the spirit and how they’re used to communicating,
or how adept you are at sensing these things. You can lay down the wand if you want at this point
and enjoy the conversation, unless you feel a need to be commanding or intimidating.
If a spirit is present and is not the one you called, it’s up to you how to handle the situation.
You can see if it’s a representative of the one you called (common in the case of angels or powerful
spirits with legions behind them), you can try to talk with it anyway and see what it’s up to or what
it wanted, or just dismiss it outright using whatever names of power or curses you find handy at the
moment. After dismissing the spirit, if you still want to try and conjure the original spirit desired,
start the conjuration over from “In the name of the blessed and Tetragrammaton. . . ” above.
If no spirit is present or sensible to you, you might want to move onto the dismissal below or
try to continue the ritual. Try the conjuration above again until you obtain success, or continue on
and ask for different ways for the spirit to be seen or heard by you, or just continue on as normal
with your requests.
When you’re done, take up the wand again and give the spirit leave to depart.

O great and mighty spirit Michael, I thank you for your presence. You have come as I
have called, and aided me as I have asked. As you came in peace and in the name of
the ever-blessed and righteous Tetragrammaton, so in this same name you may depart,
and return to me when I call you in his name to whom every knee bows down. Farewell,
Michael; let peace be between us, here and everywhere, now and always, by and for the
sake of the Almighty. Amen.
To God the father, the eternal spirit, the fountain of light, the creator of all creation,
and the sustainer of all life be all honor and glory, world without end. Amen.

Snuff the candle and take off the lamen and ring with any concluding prayers or rituals you find
necessary. The ritual is finished.

262
About the Author
With a pen name meaning “many appearances”, Sam Block (polyphanes) is a diviner, mage, and
priest specializing primarily in the currents of Renaissance Hermetic as well as classical Greco-
Egyptian magical practices, as well as a devotee of the Hellenic god Hermēs and an initiated
son of Ogún in La Regla de Ocha Lukumí. When not performing arcane rituals, continuing his
divinatory research, or serving his religious community, he can often be found at his day job as
a software engineer, playing with his cat or husband, or writing for his blog The Digital Ambler
(https://digitalambler.com/).

Copyright
c 2019 by Sam Block (polyphanes, The Digital Ambler ). All rights reserved.

This document was typeset in LATEX 2ε through pdfTEX.