Nashimiron wrote:I was hesitant about posting this, given that the last person who criticized a Stephen Skinner publication disappeared from the internet. But, what the hell, at the risk of exposing myself to a vengeful blasting current....
.Nashimiron wrote:When I got this book, my feelings mirrored grimoire scholar Alan Thorogood's reaction to Skinner & Rankine's transcription of Enochian material "interest turned to bemusement turned to exasperation"
Nashimiron wrote:In fact, I could continue quoting Thorogood on the above book,Some of the supporting material is not very well researched and independent editorial input might have prevented several egregious errors creeping in....the hypothesis... is not supportable by any stretch of the imagination.
Nashimiron wrote:as this applies also to elements of "Techniques...",
Nashimiron wrote:although I would add that some of what he writes concerning the PGM seems to me to be downright deceptive and he appears to be riding on the safe assumption that most of his readers will be overwhelmed by the PGM and so unlikely to notice the not-so-occasional fudge.
Nashimiron wrote:One thing that stands out to me from the book first appears in the section titled "Circle of Protection". He admits that there are only two occurrences of circles drawn on the ground, (and, I should add only one of which the magician stands upon), but supports his argument that circles are commonplace in the PGM by saying that we can assume the reason circles are never mentioned is because their use was taken for granted.
This is simply bunkum. He is very subtle when he describes the phrase in question as "do the usual" for this turns it in to a command to perform a specific act. The truth is, I can't think of a single occurrence of "do the usual" in the PGM. As far as I am aware it is always "add the usual".
So what is the word being translated as "add the usual"? It is Koina and variants. In Supplementum Magicum II - which is in Skinner's bibliography- it is defined as
Brother_Moloch_969 wrote:Are you certain you are not confusing two different terms? You mention in the above example "Koina" and then in the next paragraph quote, you use "KOINON" which has a different suffix.
At best this is is an example of what is considered off the mark though I do not see any deliberate attempt at faulty scholarship. Will it interfere with the PGM's spells and incantations overall? No.
Nashimiron wrote:Brother_Moloch_969 wrote:Are you certain you are not confusing two different terms? You mention in the above example "Koina" and then in the next paragraph quote, you use "KOINON" which has a different suffix.
At best this is is an example of what is considered off the mark though I do not see any deliberate attempt at faulty scholarship. Will it interfere with the PGM's spells and incantations overall? No.Nashimiron wrote:Hi Brother Moloch. Just to address this specific point - what Skinner is saying is that this group of phrasing using koina and variants is translated as "do the usual" but "do the usual" does not as far as I can see occur a single time in the PGM. So he has misrepresented the English, never mind the Greek.
In all fairness, Flowers does pretty much the same in his "Hermetic Magic". Dr. Flowers mentions using some standard ritual to proceed - as you use in your own working - such as a purification rite. Like Dr. Skinner, he does not go into detail about this allowing for the reader to make up his own mind.
Any work studying the PGM has to analyse the content of that text. (No shit I hear you say!). So subtle misreadings which alter the intent of the original text are a bad thing.
Does it interfere with the spell overall? Yes absolutely because he is changing the bit at the end where you are instructed to speak to the spirit after you have summoned it with an instruction to cast a circle (a bit late by then I would have thought).
Brother_Moloch_969 wrote:I'm not stating that the intentional misdirection of the reader is not some how wrong; rather I'm not certain I agree fully with your premise that this is a blatant screw up here. Looking at Webb's "Seven Faces of Darkness", he states on p. 50, "To perform the spells given in Chapter 6 of this book, you will need a ritual framework." This indicates the PGM spells were not meant to be used without some sort of frame or ritual backdrop to work the spells with. Dr. Flowers says pretty much the same thing in his "Hermetic Magic" as well. It is just that these two manuals are meant not as scholarly references but rather as working texts thus they provide this framework.
Framework does indeed include circles, circle creation and so forth because both Webb & Flowers mention the use of a circle to separate yourself from the forces being summoned. So if two occult scholars like Webb and Dr. Flowers suggest a circle, what is so wron with Dr. Skinner's suggestion of using one? All over the mistranslation of a word and its variants? In fact, I do not believe Dr. Skinner had anything to do with that himself rather I believe that was Betz especially if Webb & Flowers drew the same conclusion.
Nashimiron wrote:It's just occured to me that the discusison around translation of Koina- could go in a fruitful direction. As it's established that the meaning of the phrasing is misrepresented in Skinner's book, it also becomes obvious it is not well translated in Betz. Instead of "add the usual, whatever you like" etc it should be more clear that it is an instruction to break from the ritual form and speak directly to the spirit in the common tongue. Instead of "add the usual" it could say "speak freely, ask whatever you want".
Leonardo_Drakon wrote:This is a really fascinating!
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... koina%2Fn0
"common", "impart", "partner", "communicate" ...all seem to resonate with your statement. I can get behind this definition
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests