EXTRACTS FROM:

Ars Notoria: The Grimoire of Rapid Learning by Magic, with the Golden Flowers of Apollonius
of Tyana (Vol. I - Version A). Edited and Introduced by Stephen Skinner & Daniel
Clark, Golden Hoard Press, 2019.

1
 Contents
List of Figures 9
Acknowledgements 11
1. Background
Trivium and Quadrivium 13
Main Schools of Western Magic 15
Ars Notoria and the Lemegeton 16
Origin of the Ars Notoria 18
Greek Origins 21
Critics and Famous Owners 22
Possible Authors 25
John of Morigny and the Liber Visionum 27
Ars Notoria and the Liber Juratus 29
Distribution of the Manuscripts of the Ars Notoria 30
Printed Editions 31
Turner’s English Translation 32
Reorganisation of the Text 33
Versions of the text of Ars Notoria 34
Derivative Works 35
The Figure of Memory 36
2. Magicians, Physicians, Scribes, Collectors, and a Translator
Apollonius of Tyana (c. 15 – c. 100) 39
Euclid of Thebes, father of Honorius 44
Hartmann Schedel (1440 – 1514) 45
Albert V, Duke of Bavaria (1528-1579) 46
Simon Forman (1552 – 1611) 49
George Wrighte (1677 – 1724) 59
Robert Turner (1626 – c. 1666) 61
Sir Hans Sloane (1660 – 1724) 64
3. The Main Manuscripts 71
4. The Notae 87
5. Compendium and Distribution of the Notae 93
6. Method of Use and Practical Considerations 117

Ars Notoria
7. Full Manuscript of the earliest Ars Notoria 1225 127
8. English Translation of the Ars Notoria 165
Prologue Sections 1-4 170
1. Flores Aurei Sections 5-70 172
2. Of the Liberal Arts Sections 71-89 194
Trivium Sections 128-147 201
Quadrivium Sections 134, 90-109 206
3. Ars Nova – 10 Orations Sections 110-125 215
4. Supplementary Gloss & Prayers Sections S147-S176 222
5. On the Figure of Memory Sections S177-S180 233

2
9. Complete sets of notae from four manuscripts of different periods 239
MS BL Sloane 1712 c. 1250 240
MS BSB CLM 276 c. 1350 259
MS BnF Lat. 9336 14th century 283
MS NLI Yar. Var. 34 1600 307
10. Latin text of the Ars Notoria in Agrippa’s Opera Omnia 339

Appendix 0 – The Notae in Numerical ID Order 387

Appendix 1 – Table of Subjects 395
Appendix 2 – Structure of the Prayers, Orations & Notae 396
Appendix 3 – Prayers ‘borrowed’ by Liber Juratus from Ars Notoria 405
Appendix 4 – Text of the verba ignota Orations 407
Appendix 5 – Known works by Robert Turner of Holshott 415
Appendix 6 – The Ecclesiastical Hours 419
Bibliography 420
Index 432

3
List of Figures

01: King Solomon receiving a book of Wisdom from an angel 4

02: Notae in the form of a column resting on an inverted head 20
03: Byzantine column supported by the inverted head of Medusa 20
04: Title page of Agrippa ‘s De Occulta Philosophia, 1551 32
05: The Figure of Memory as it appears in Agrippa’s Opera Omnia 37
06: The Figure of Memory in its complete form 38
07: A stone ‘talisman’ invoking the power of seven archangels 41
08: Inscription commemorating Apollonius’ life and qualities 43
09: Woodcut of Erfurt in Hartmann Schedel’s Nuremberg Chronicles 45
10: Albert V, Duke of Bavaria 46
11: Bookplate of the Dukes of Bavaria dated 1618 in CLM 276 47
12: Simon Forman, astrologer and physician 49
13: The frontispiece of John Melton’s Astrologaster, 1620 51
14: Forman’s Liber de Arte Memoratiua siue Notoria 54
15: Scandalous aristocrats: Francis Howard and her lovers 55
16: The armorial bookplate of George Wrighte 59
17: Gothurst (Gayhurst) House, late 16th century 60
18: Robert Turner as he appears in his book Botanologia, 1664 63
19: Portrait of Sir Hans Sloane 64
20: Milk Chocolate: Sir Hans Sloane teams up with Cadburys 66
21: Montagu House, sold to the British Museum in 1759 68
22: A variant form of the Second nota of Rhetoric 90
23: Compendium and manuscript Distribution of the Notae 94
24: Compendium of Notae arranged by subject 98
25: Historical development of the Notae in key manuscripts 102
26: Correct dates on which to inspect the Notae 125

27-62: MS Yale Mellon 1 128-163

63: Title page of Robert Turner’s 1657 Ars Notoria translation 166
64: The Figure of Memory (in Turner) 223
65-81: MS BL Sloane 1712 241-257
82-103: MS BSB CLM 276 260-281
104-125: MS BnF Lat. 9336 284-305
126-155: MS NLI Yah. Var. 34 308-337

4
156: Figure of Memory (Latin) 384
157: The Notae in numeric ID order 393
158: List of the Subjects 395
159: Table of the Sections, Prayers, Orations & Notae 398
160: Prayers borrowed by Liber Juratus from Ars Notoria 406
161: Books written and translated by Robert Turner 418
162: List of the main Ars Notoria Manuscripts 426

5
 EXTRACTS FROM THE INTRODUCTION

1. Background
According to its Prologue, this book promises to teach (by angelic help) and very rapidly,1 the
arts of arithmetic, astrology, astronomy, cyromancy (chiromancy), dialectic (logic), geomancy,
geometry, geonogia,2 grammar, Greek, Hebrew, hydromancy (hygromanteia), law, medicine,
memory, music, neonogia,3 nigromancie, philosophy, pyromancy, rhetoric (eloquence),
theology, the mechanical arts, and the exceptive arts.4 In other words almost the entire
university curriculum as it was conceived of in the 13th century, of the trivium and quadrivium,
plus a selection of other useful subjects like geomancy, magic, and memory.

Trivium & Quadrivium

The subjects offered by the Ars Notoria are drawn from the Mediaeval curriculum which is
usually divided as follows.
The Trivium covers subjects relating to logical thinking and language:
Grammar (including the learning of Latin itself)
Dialectic or Logic (the ability to think logically and argue)
Rhetoric (the ability to speak convincingly and deliver arguments)
The Quadrivium includes four subjects based on number:
Arithmetic
Geometry
Music
Astronomy (including astrology)
Post-graduate subjects (as it were) included:
Medicine (Physic)
Theology
Law (but not included in the Ars Notoria)
Nigromancy (magic)
Although some of these subjects like logic, rhetoric and grammar are mainly ignored today, the
skill of being able to argue a topic logically and both speak about it persuasively and write about
it, are in fact very useful skills in any period.
The Ars Notoria is not, as some people may think, ‘the notorious art’ but is named after the
magical diagrams, or notae which are a key part of its method. The aim of the Ars Notoria was
to use these notae to both improve memory and to provide a scheme that would induce a rapid
understanding in the operator of a particular art or science. It is easy to imagine eager students
using this art as an aid to cramming or rapidly absorbing the essence of a subject. In a time of
few books, the ability to understand the ground plan of a subject or memorise whole chunks
of material was highly prized and indeed a necessary skill of the scholar. Knowledge was
literally defined as how much you knew or could remember.

1 Kieckhefer, in Forbidden Rites, 1997, pp. 193-196, analyses one experimentum which permits the mastery
of the liberal arts in just thirty days.
2 Probably General Arts, from the Greek γεονογια. These included memory arts.
3 New arts, from the Greek νεονογια.
4 Arts outside of the approved university curriculum such as magic and divination. These were

sometimes deliberately confused with the mechanical arts to avoid ecclesiastical condemnation.

6
Who in the modern world would not like their memory improved, or to have the facility to
understand and remember material just read once, or be able to absorb complex subjects with
rapidity and ease? These aims of the Ars Notoria are as fresh and as relevant now as they were 800
years ago.
As Robert Turner explains: 5
The Ars Notoria, the magical art of memory, flourished during the Middle Ages,
although its origins are attributed to Solomon and Apollonius of Tyana. It is a process
by which the magician could instantly gain knowledge or memory of all the arts and
sciences. Each branch of knowledge or subject area was assigned a set of magical seals
and characters, known as notae. To set the process into operation, the appropriate notae
were contemplated whilst reciting angelic names and magical orisons. However, it was
regarded as a diabolical form of magic, since the knowledge was quickly acquired from
‘demons’ without honest study.
There were some questions about the morality of using angels rather than the labour of honest
study, but in practice most students would use this art as an aid rather than an end in itself. If
you like, it was the more technically advanced equivalent of a prayer to help you pass exams.
Nowadays prayers are seen as freeform supplications and request lists, but the Ars Notoria
made a much more precise technology out of it. The Ars Notoria had such procedures taped
800 years ago, but only for worthy and studious objectives, not for the banal objectives of
acquiring cars, money, love and career, which are often the magical objectives of the present
century.
By about the seventeenth century, and certainly in the twentieth century, knowledge was
redefined as the ability to find specific information from the huge range of available books. In
the twenty-first century knowledge may be redefined again as the art of using the net and
Google most effectively to find that same information. But in the Middle Ages, the ability to
memorise, absorb and organise material was paramount. It is precisely for that purpose the
Ars Notoria was devised. Its methods promised the student that, with the ‘inspection’ of
certain elaborate diagrams (notae) accompanied by the correct prayers and orations consisting
of verba ignota, whole subjects could be rapidly absorbed.
The word notoria can refer to notes, or to the art of knowing, but in this context, it refers
specifically to the ‘notes’ or magical images used to stimulate memory and speed up
apprehension of these subjects. Although Turner translates notae as ‘notes’ this is very
misleading (given the many modern meanings of that word – musical notes, student’s notes,
jottings, shopping lists, etc.). So we have chosen to retain the Latin terms nota (singular) and
notae (plural) in our commentary. As these manuscripts belong in the world of the clerical
Middle Ages, they are all, without exception, written in Latin.

Main Schools of Western Magic

Before we look at its contents in detail, it is necessary to understand where this unique text
fits (or doesn’t fit) into the overall history of magic as it has been practiced in Europe over the
last two millennia. We are not here discussing village magic, ‘wort cunning’ or witchcraft, but
‘learned magic’ which was practiced by those who could read and had access to those manuals
of magic called grimoires. ‘Learned magic’ in Europe and around the Mediterranean littoral
fell into basically two varieties:

5 The twentieth century Robert Turner in his book Elizabethan Magic (1989), p. 139, not his namesake

who originally translated the Ars Notoria into English in 1657.

7
 1. Astral or Image Magic is a method that comes from Arabic roots. It was probably
introduced to Europe with the translation of the Picatrix first into Spanish and then in
1256 into Latin at the court of King Alphonso X of Castile. This style of magic involves
detailed astrological calculation of ‘elections’ or times in which to consecrate specific
talismans. It was not commonly thought to involve the invocation/evocation of angels,
demons or spirits, but to operate within the bounds of the natural world working by
focussing the rays transmitted to Earth from various heavenly bodies on to talismans.
2. Solomonic Magic involves the evocation and invocation of angels, demons and
spirits which are then bound by the magician to perform certain magical acts for him.
This style of magic comes from Greek roots (not Hebrew as is sometimes thought) and
entered Europe from Egypt via Byzantium. With the fall of Constantinople to the Turks
in 1453, fleeing monks and scholars brought Solomonic treatises, such as the Magical
Treatise of Solomon or Hygromanteia to Europe, where they were rapidly translated into
Latin and Italian under titles like the Key of Solomon.
The basic distinction between Astral magic and Solomonic magic needs to be understood and
preserved. However categorising the Ars Notoria as one or the other is quite difficult for a
number of reasons.
The Ars Notoria is often lumped in with Solomonic magic because of its pseudepigraphical
attribution to Solomon, and more recently the happenstance that it was often considered the
fifth part of a collection of grimoires called the Lemegeton, with which its text was sometimes
bound. However, it does not have a Register of spirits nor does it have a protective floor circle,
nor a set of pre-consecrated tools, all of which are key ingredients of Solomonic magic. On the
other hand, apart from Moon phase observation it does not have any of the astrological
calculations so characteristic of Astral or Image magic.

Ars Notoria and the Lemegeton

The usual rationale for the Ars Notoria being counted as ‘Solomonic’ comes from the
introduction to the Lemegeton which is found in several manuscripts in which it is said that
Solomon gained all his knowledge by using the Ars Notoria:
The fifth part is a Booke of orations and prayers that wise Solomon used upon the altar
in the Temple [in Jerusalem] which is called Artem Novam [‘New Art’ another name for
the Ars Notoria]. The which was revealed to Salomon by the holy angel of God called
Michael, and he also received many breef Notes [hence Notae] written by the finger of
God which was declared to him by the said Angel, with Thunder claps, without which
Notes Salomon had never obtained to his great knowledge, for by them in short time he
knew all arts and sciences both good and bad, which from these Notes [the book] is
called Ars Notoria.
In this Book is contained the whole art of Salomon although there be many other Books
that is said to be his yet none is to be compared with this, for this containeth them all,
although they be titled with several other names, [such] as the Book Helisol which is the
very same as this last is, which [is] called Artem Novam & Ars Notoria, &c.6
The text of Ars Notoria was first printed in English (1657) at around the same time that many
of the manuscripts of the Lemegeton were being written or copied. In fact, some manuscript
versions of the Ars Notoria were copied directly from the printed translation by Robert Turner,
rather than the other way around. This timing may have been responsible for the 17th century
inclusion of the Ars Notoria in the Lemegeton.

6 Sloane 3648, f. 1.

8
However, the other constituents of the Lemegeton are all based on the evocation of
spirits/demons, but the Ars Notoria is not an evocatory text and therefore does not fit well in
the context of the Lemegeton. Secondarily, there is a very telling mention of the Lemegeton in
the text of the Ars Notoria itself:
Therefore it is called, The Notory Art, because in certain brief Notes, it teacheth and
comprehendeth the knowledge of all Arts: for so Solomon also saith in his Treatise
Lemegeton,7 that is, in his Treatise of Spiritual and Secret Experiments.8
This passage clearly indicates that Turner knew that the Lemegeton was a separate volume. We
suspect that at some stage this mention in the original Latin caused someone to assume the
identity of the two.
We will therefore here consider it as a free-standing text entirely separate from the Lemegeton,
rather than suggesting that it is the fifth part of that book. One of the strangest ideas that has
cropped up recently is that the Ars Notoria should be treated as some kind of prologue to the
four books of the Lemegeton. This is complete nonsense, and obviously invented by someone
who has no idea what it is, or how it works.
Not only is the Ars Notoria not part of the Lemegeton, it is also not part of mainstream
Solomonic evocatory magic. There is no use in it of consecrated tools like a circle, triangle,
censor, sword or knife. There are no obvious angel, demon, or spirit names (unless they are
hidden in the verba ignota).9 There are no obvious conjurations, merely prayers of a fairly
conventional kind, asking for increase of memory, etc, but not ordering or binding any
‘spiritual creature’ to do anything.

Origin of the Ars Notoria

In the Jewish literature that circulated between the fifth and ninth centuries, there are many tales
of ancient rabbis conjuring an angel called Sar-Torah, the ‘Prince of the Torah.’ This angel
functioned like the angels of the Ars Notoria, and may have even been a distant model upon which
they were based. Sar-Torah reputedly endowed the rabbis with the spectacular memory skills
necessary for memorising vast swathes of the Torah. The angel then taught the rabbis a formula
for giving others the same gift.
That literature has been made available by Michael Swartz, 10 who gives us rare glimpses of how
ancient and medieval Jews viewed this process of rapid learning aided by angelic conjuration. He
examines many of the magical rituals for conjuring angels and ascending to heaven,11 in the
Merkabah chariot, a magical practice that is still very much a part of the practical Kabbalah.
Furthermore, just six notae are to be found in one Hebrew manuscript (BL Or. 14759) with a few
introductory lines of Hebrew (including a mention in Hebrew of the book Sepher Ha-Mazloth),12
that leads us to the temptation to suggest a Jewish origin. Richard Kieckhefer makes the same
suggestion of a Jewish origin, in passing, by referring to the Ars Notoria as a pseudo-Solomonic
adaptation of Jewish magic:
the Liber visionum by John Morigny adapts the ars notoria, itself a pseudo-Solomonic

7 The Lemegeton appears with several different spellings in different manuscripts: Lemogetan (Y),
Lemogedan (P), and even Demegeton (L).
8 Turner, Ars Notoria, p. 18.
9 Unknown words, probably corrupt words from Greek sources.
10 Complete translations of the principal Sar-Torah texts will be found in Michael D. Swartz, Scholastic

Magic, Princeton: PUP, 1996.

11 Or ‘descending,’ as it is sometimes put.
12 ‘Book of the Zodiac’ or more broadly ‘Book of the Cosmos.’

9
 adaptation of Jewish magic to gain knowledge and enhance memory...”13
Kieckhefer does not give any support for his statement beyond the association with Solomon.
However, as in the case with the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, with which this particular Hebrew
manuscript is bound, this will almost certainly turn out to be a Hebrew copy of a Latin original.14
The Ars Notoria is ‘Solomonic’ only in the sense that he was a putative author, and in an
academic sense, as it is often grouped with other Solomonic manuscripts such as the
Lemegeton. But in a strictly magical sense, as delimited by the nature of the techniques
involved, Ars Notoria is definitely not a text of Solomonic magic. Its techniques are more a
function of contemplation and prayer, which are quite likely to have evolved in the cloister or
the yeshivah, but not in the circle of evocation. Finding any roots for this text amongst
Solomonic grimoires is highly unlikely as its notae do not resemble any typical Solomonic
talismans, sigils or seals, in any way. They are totally unique. Their design was taken very
seriously, as evidenced by the amount of effort and painstaking design and draughtsmanship
put into their construction (much more than most talismanic drawings in Solomonic
manuscripts).
If Ars Notoria is not Solomonic evocatory magic, then what is it? Despite basic requirements
concerning moon phases, there is no elaborate system of ‘elections’ either, so it cannot be
categorised as Astral or Image magic either. Beyond that all we can say is that it is in a class of
its own. We are left with a totally unique style of magic.
Examination of the verba ignota suggest a mixture of Greek and Hebrew origin. If we look at
the names invoked, we see a few ending in ‘...iel’ (a typical Hebrew angelic name ending) but
also many that end in ’...mai’ a typical Greek ending for verbs. For example (in Section 118):
...Sazamai, Geternamai, Salathiel, Gozomiel, Megal, Nathamian, Jamazair, Sephonai,
Mois, Ranna, Zaramaen, Gezonomai, Amamin, Delot, Azememelot, Chades, Baruc.,
Smor, Gezeron, Malaparos, Ellamai, Merai.
There are a scattering of angel names, such as Camael/Camiel and Pamphilius who is
mentioned four times, and is also reputed to have given a book of Wisdom to Solomon.
Raphael and Gabriel appear once, but Michael takes a much more important role being the
name inscribed in the Figure of Memory (see Figure 06). As an angel who also helps bind
spirits this seems appropriate. Ambiguous demon names such as Azathabelial appear, but not
in sufficient quantity to support the theologian’s claim that the verba ignota were all spirit or
demon names.

13 Richard Kieckhefer, ‘Did Magic have a Renaissance?’ in Magic and the Classical Tradition, (ed.) Charles
Burnett & W. F. Ryan, London: Warburg, 2006, p. 210.
14 See Hermann Gollancz, Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, York Beach: Teitan, 2008, Introduction, pp. x-xiii.

10
Figure 02: Notae in the form of a column resting on an inverted head.15

Figure 03: Byzantine column supported by the inverted head of Medusa that had previously graced a
Greek temple, but then was used in the construction of the Basilica water cistern of Constantinople.

15 Mellon 1, f. 16. Also found in other later manuscripts of the Ars Notoria.

11
Greek Origins
There is however some rather unique circumstantial iconographic evidence which supports a
Greek origin. Not just a general Greek cultural origin but specifically a Greek city of origin. The
clue is to be found in the 7th nota of Philosophy which shows a column resting on a massive
inverted marble head. It is probably fair to say that such a column is totally unique and only to
be found in one place in the world: in the water cistern of old Constantinople (Istanbul) that was
constructed in the 6th century by the Emperor Justinian. The Emperor ‘harvested’ 336 marble
columns from various pagan temples to support the roof of his huge cistern. It was so massive
that it has been compared in size to a Basilica, and was capable of holding at least 100,000 tons
of water. Just two of these columns utilised massive inverted Medusa heads as their bases, in
a clear demonstration of architectural disrespect for their pagan origin. In the illustration of
the two notae (Figure 02) you can clearly see these two columns resting on their respective
inverted heads. Even the curved lines on either side of the notae drawings seem to reflect the
architectural ribs of the cistern roof appearing to spring out from the sides of the column
(Figure 03). These columns in the cistern of Constantinople are so unique that it is very likely
that the person using this image to design two of the notae was a native of Constantinople,
and familiar with this particular cistern. Therefore it seems highly likely that the author, or at
least a redactor, was a native of Constantinople.
Jean Dupèbe as long ago as 1987,16 suggested that the origins of the practice of the Ars Notoria
might be sought in Neoplatonism or even theurgy. Although I do not entirely agree with his
conclusions, or his definition of theurgy, some of his arguments strengthen the case for the
Greek roots of the Ars Notoria, and its transmission to the Latin west via Constantinople. There
are also some statements in Sections 45-46 that the Orations specifically contain Greek names:
These Greek Names following are to be pronounced... Hiema, Helma, Hemna.
Finally, a Greek origin is suggested by the pseudepigraphic attributions of this text to
Apollonius of Tyana and Euclid,17 both Greek magicians.

Possible Authors
The authorship of the Ars Notoria is traditionally credited to Solomon, who received it from
God via the hand of the angel Pamphilius. Several manuscripts claimed that Solomon learned
all his wisdom using this text. Whether true or not a fairly large group of monks, priests and
others must have used the Ars Notoria to lighten the load of their studies. Even today the rapid
acquisition of subjects is a beguiling prospect.
The author of the Flores Aurei/Golden Flowers (an integral part of Ars Notoria) was said to be
Apollonius of Tyana (or ‘Belenus’ as he was known in the Arabic speaking world). It is highly
unlikely that either Solomon or Apollonius actually wrote the Ars Notoria, and both names
were obviously just convenient pseudepigraphic ascriptions.
Although the Ars Notoria was probably originally conceived of in (or transmitted via)
Constantinople as we have seen, and was definitely a part of Greek magical culture, the
earliest manuscript we have, Yale Mellon 1, was written in northern Italy in Latin. Véronèse
is very certain the origin of this particular manuscript was in Bologna.18 This university town
was also one of the key cities in the transmission and translation of other magical works such

16 Dupèbe, Jean. ‘L’Ars notoria et la polémique sur la divination et la magie’ in Divination et controverse
religieuse en France au XVIe siècle, Paris: L’E.N.S de Jeunes Filles, 1987, pp. 122-134.
17 The reference is to Euclid of Thebes (in Greece), the father of Honorius, the supposed author of Liber

Juratus, rather than Euclid the geometer.

18 Véronèse (2007), p. 30. Also his thesis Vol. 1, Ch. 2, p. 17-18.

12
as the Greek Magical Treatise of Solomon which was translated into the Latin as the Clavicula
Salomonis (the Key of Solomon).19
At this time Bologna was a major centre of scholarly effort – and Bologna University, by its
own account, was the oldest university in Europe in continuous operation, having been
founded in 1088. It was also the home town of two very famous thirteenth-century Bolognese
teachers of the Ars Notaria, Rolandinus 20 and Salatiel. It looked as though we might have
identified a potential author, until we looked again at their art which was Notaria not Notoria.
These two were in fact famous penmen, drafters of great Charters, and masters of calligraphy,
not masters of the art of memory. They were certainly capable of drafting the beautiful Yale
Mellon 1, but appeared not to have shown interest in its subject matter.
We looked again at figures current in Bologna around this time and noticed Boncompagno da
Signa (1170-1240). Like Rolandinus and Salatiel, he held an important place in the history of
the Ars Dictaminis, the art of drafting official documents, letters and charters. During the time
he worked at the University of Bologna he wrote upon many aspects of grammar, rhetoric
and prose composition, all ingredients of the Trivium. But even more interesting, he was
fascinated by memory, and even composed a detailed essay on that subject.21 Although we
have no certainty that he was involved in the more occult facets of memory development, his
interests, graphical abilities, geographical location and timing certainly fit the profile of a
potential translator or copyist of the Mellon Ars Notoria.

John of Morigny and the Liber Visionum

Sophie Page says of the Ars Notoria that it was “written for the student seeking help with his
studies and the monk aspiring to visionary experience,”22 but this is only partly true. For most
of the 13th century the Ars Notoria was used by students and monks to facilitate the rapid
absorption of subjects, with the visionary part restricted to the initial operation designed to
request permission to go forward with the operation. It was only at the beginning of the 14th
century the idea of using it to conjure visions (holy or otherwise) became an important objective.
A monk called John was in the vanguard of that evolution.
John was one of the early recorded owners of a copy of the Ars Notoria. He was born in Autruy
in the 1290s, became a choirboy at Chartres around 1297, and later a novice at Morigny. He
was then sent to Orleans to study law. Probably that is where he encountered the Ars Notoria
and worked with it during 1304, also teaching his sister, Bridget, its method.
John of Morigny however found that using the Ars Notoria without proper preparation caused
him to have terrifying demonic visions, and so he prepared a bowdlerised version of it in 1311
which he called Liber Visionum, and later an even more ‘purified’ version in 1315 which omitted
the notae and concentrated its focus on invocations of the Virgin Mary.
It is instructive to look at John’s early history to understand what happened.
When I, John, was about fourteen years old and lived in the city of Chartres in the close
[lane] of the blessed Mary, very close to the church, about a stone’s throw away, this
vision was shown to me...

19 The oldest extant Greek manuscript of that work (1440) still resides in the library of the University of
Bologna.
20 Rolandino da Passagerii, Summa Artis Notariae, 1590. His extraordinary two floor tomb supported on

nine marble columns can still be seen today in Bologna.

21 Sean Gallagher, ‘Boncompagno da Signa, On Memory’ in Carruthers & Ziolkowski, The Medieval Craft of

Memory, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State UP, 2002.

22 Sophie Page (2013), p. 115.

13
 On a certain night I was placed in a kind of ecstasy, whether in the body or out of the
body I know not, God knows.23 And lo, I saw a certain horrible figure, and it seemed to
me absolutely certain that it was the enemy of the human race. And that figure rose up
against me, wishing and craving to suffocate me. When I saw it I fled aghast in great
fear from its terrible face, and it pursued me hither and thither, and could not catch me,
and yet pressed upon me as it followed, so that I left the house I was in, fleeing from the
face of my persecutor. And when I went outside it did not cease to pursue me; and when
it rose up hugely, I stopped in my tracks and ran towards the church of the blessed
Mary...
And lo, suddenly the devoted virgin Mary counselled me sweetly with a sign of her arm
that I should come to her... And I did not see my persecutor the devil any more after
that.24
From this passage it is obvious that John was from his youth both afflicted by demonic visions,
and attached to the Virgin Mary, long before he got involved with the Ars Notoria. Not only
was the Virgin Mary a prominent figure in the church he lived next to, but the door that he
entered the church by had a curved architrave which featured not only many angels but also
the seven Liberal Arts, a clear foreshadowing of his later experience with Ars Notoria.
Although John’s book is usually referred to as Liber Visionum, in fact this is just the title of the
(autobiographical) introduction, while the heart of the book is called Liber Florum Celestis
Doctrine, the ‘Book of the Flowers of the Heavenly Learning,’ a clear nod in the direction of
the Flores Aurei (‘Golden Flowers’) of the Ars Notoria.25
Its complete title is The Book of Flowers of Heavenly Doctrine Book of the Grace of Christ (or Seven
Prayers) and it contained: Part I, a ‘Book of Visions’ (which contained John’s autobiographical
visions); Part II, ‘Thirty Prayers: a Book of Prayers’ and a ‘First Procedure’); Part III, a ‘Book
of Figures.’ For convenience (and backward compatibility) we will continue to refer to the
whole volume as Liber Visionum.
His Liber Visionum came in three recensions: the Old Compilation (only one manuscript
known) written by 1311; the New Compilation (at least twelve manuscripts are known)
completed in 1315; and the third compilation (consisting of six manuscripts).
The notae in the Old Compilation are described rather than illustrated, and amount to circa 90
figures. After criticism, the New Compilation cut this number to eight: being seven figures of
Mary and one of Jesus Christ. Consequently neither version of the Liber Visionum has much in
the way of notae.
John’s introduction which sets the scene says “Here begins the Book of Visions of the blessed
and undefiled Virgin Mary, mother of God which she gave to her servant John in the year of
our Lord 1308 after the reprobation of the nefarious Ars Notoria and the other parts of
necromancy.” John thought that he had heavenly approval for his revised book, specifically
from the Virgin Mary, but despite this in 1323 his book was publicly burned in Paris as it was
considered a revival of the ‘accursed’ Ars Notoria. John later thought that he saw in a vision a
conversation between the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit), but also a vision in which he was to be killed by a demon, so even after ‘purifying’
the Ars Notoria, he was still plagued with visions.

23 This is very reminiscent of the passages in Ars Paulina where the vision voyager is not sure if he is
astrally projected, or still in his body.
24 Translated in Nicholas Watson and Claire Fanger, ‘The Prologue to John of Morigny‘s Liber Visionum,’

in Esoterica: The Journal of Esoteric Studies 3, 3001, p. 108-217.

25 John borrowed his title from The Flower of Heavenly Learning in Section 38.

14
John explained that he had discarded the evil parts of the Ars Notoria, but retained the verba
ignota, “plundering its divine words as the Hebrews had plundered the Egyptian treasure.” He
assumes (probably correctly) that these words are one of the real treasures of the book. He
thought that these words were of Egyptian origin, which is possible, but their transmission route
via the Greeks is more likely than that via the Jews.
John’s Liber Visionum initially preserved the same subject matter, the rapid learning of the
seven liberal arts plus philosophy and theology, but added the acquisition of the beatific
vision and the supposed endorsement of the Virgin Mary. In summary, the Liber Visionum of
John of Morigny is derived from the Ars Notoria but is a ‘sanitised’ Christianised version with
‘acceptable’ figures presided over by the Virgin Mary, but with no true notae at all. These efforts
by John have generated the bulk of the academic studies of both the Ars Notoria and Liber
Visionum. With regard to examining the development of the notae, the Liber Visionum, is however
a bit of a cul-de-sac.

Ars Notoria and the Liber Juratus

The title of Liber Juratus is conventionally translated as ‘The Sworn Book,’ but it would be
much more useful to understand it as ‘The Oathbound Book’ as that title reflects the
conditions under which it was supposed to be passed from one magician to the next. It is
common knowledge that Book I of the Sworn Book of Honorius or Liber Juratus Honorii has a
number of prayers (or orations) derived directly from the Ars Notoria. Both these texts date
from the early 13th century, and both were mentioned critically by William of Auvergne in
1228.26
It has been established that the direction of borrowing was from the Ars Notoria to the Juratus,
but just in case there are any lingering doubts about that, I would like to cite a confirmatory
passage. Towards the end of Section LXIII of Liber Juratus a reference is made to “the mysteries
of the figures.” Joseph Peterson is quick to point out that “this refers no doubt to the notae or
mystical drawings which are the centerpiece of that art,” the art of the Ars Notoria.27 There are
no such figures in the Juratus, and clearly the redactor who copied these prayers from the Ars
Notoria forgot to edit out that mention. In order to show the extent of the borrowing, which
was extensive, we have tabulated it in Appendix 3. There are no less than 74 passages or whole
prayers borrowed by Liber Juratus from the Ars Notoria.
This also demonstrates how important the Ars Notoria was to the early history of the
development of the grimoire. In some ways, the author of Liber Juratus has done something
similar to the author of Liber Visionum: taking the prayers and verba ignota from Ars Notoria in
order to build a system whose objectives were devotional prayer resulting in the beatific
vision, rather than the intellectual acquisition of knowledge. Liber Juratus has a second part
(Books II-IV) which is much more Solomonic in nature. That part is more like a conventional
grimoire, and was obviously derived from a completely different source, not the Ars Notoria, as
it deals with the conjuration of angels and spirits (both of the air and of the earth).

Distribution of the Manuscripts of the Ars Notoria

By the time John had finished his work on Liber Visionum, copies of the Ars Notoria were in
circulation in France, Germany, Austria, England, Italy, Spain, and Hungary. Véronèse
outlines a distribution of the present location of some 74 manuscripts by country:

26 In the case of Liber Juratus, the title referred to by William was Liber Sacratus. This probably equates with
Liber Sacer, another early title of Liber Juratus.
27 Peterson (2016), p. 141.

15
 UK 22
Germany 15
France 12
Italy 9
Austria 8
Czech Republic 2
Poland 2
US 2
Israel 1
Outside Europe 1
Interestingly the UK is leading the tally, which may simply be a result of greater scholarly
access to catalogues or more precise cataloguing. The present Bibliography lists over 110
manuscripts.
Of these manuscripts we have chosen to concentrate on those we see as the most significant:
From US: Yale Mellon 1
From UK: BL Sloane 1712
From Germany: BSB CLM 276
From France: BnF Lat. 9336
From Israel: NLI Yar. Var. 34
Plus consideration of Bodleian 951 and BnF Lat 7152, 7153 and 7154.
It was not just monks who read and recited the prayers and invocations in the Ars Notoria.
Copies have also been found in the ducal library of the Dukes of Milan (who owned at least
two copies) and in the royal libraries of Charles V and Charles VI of France. 28 As Benedek
Láng says, “the Ars Notaria was far from being a marginal phenomenon in the Middle Ages.”29
Láng helpfully adds that none of the central European copies of Ars Notoria contained notae.
As the art is not viable without the notae it would seem that it was not practiced in that region,
and therefore in practice its European milieu was Italy, France, Germany and England.

These extracts have been taken from Ars Notoria: The Grimoire of Rapid Learning by Magic,
with the Golden Flowers of Apollonius of Tyana (Vol. I - Version A). Edited and Introduced
by Stephen Skinner & Daniel Clark, Singapore: Golden Hoard Press, 2019.

28 One of the Dukes of Milan also sponsored at least two translations of the Key of Solomon.
29 Benedek Láng (2008), pp. 185.

16