Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Amaimon &c

Expand Messages
  • Jake Stratton-Kent
    ... hmm, some caution is necessary in equating Amaymon with Mammon. Under the rabbinical names (Azazel etc) the Four Kings as a group go back at least to the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1 June 2013 05:01, AaronL <kheph777@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In solomonic@yahoogroups.com, Scott Rassbach <fr.rassbach@...> wrote:
      >> This is part of the Abramelin text, where you summon Mammon and get his fealty (I seem to remember he's on the list, working from memory here).
      >
      > He is one of the four princes of the directions, called Amaymon in this case.

      hmm, some caution is necessary in equating Amaymon with Mammon.

      Under the 'rabbinical names' (Azazel etc) the Four Kings as a group go
      back at least to the C2nd AD (Saint Irenaeus mentions them); I'd be
      unsurprised if they were considerably earlier under one name or other.
      Also, some of Amaymon's characteristics particularly are remarkably
      stable in a wide variety of old sources even under other names;
      breathing fire being one of them.

      Meanwhile Mammon appears to be personified first in the New Testament,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
      http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10339-mamon-mammon

      Mammon only gains rank in specifically Christian demonology over time
      (the 'seven princes' notion is C16th!), when Amaymon & his colleagues
      were very well established in the grimoires already (probably C12th at
      the latest).

      Similarly, they appear to evolve quite separately, and are associated
      with quite different vices (Amaymon being violent, and under one aka
      or other also lustful).

      PS, anyone else noticed Abramelin gives NO attribution of the Kings &
      Princes to the directions?
      In fact, Belanger's worthless 'Dictionary of Demons' notwithstanding,
      the word South doesn't even appear in the text!

      ALWays

      Jake

      http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
    • AaronL
      ... [...] ... This could tell us that Amaymon did not come from Mammon - but couldn t the reverse be the case instead? That Mammon comes from the
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In solomonic@yahoogroups.com, Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
        >
        > On 1 June 2013 05:01, AaronL <kheph777@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > He is one of the four princes of the directions, called Amaymon in this case.
        >
        > hmm, some caution is necessary in equating Amaymon with Mammon.
        >
        > Under the 'rabbinical names' (Azazel etc) the Four Kings as a group go
        > back at least to the C2nd AD (Saint Irenaeus mentions them); I'd be
        > unsurprised if they were considerably earlier under one name or other.
        [...]
        > Meanwhile Mammon appears to be personified first in the New Testament,
        >
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
        > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10339-mamon-mammon

        > Mammon only gains rank in specifically Christian demonology over time
        > (the 'seven princes' notion is C16th!), when Amaymon & his colleagues
        > were very well established in the grimoires already (probably C12th at
        > the latest).

        This could tell us that "Amaymon" did not come from "Mammon" - but couldn't the reverse be the case instead? That "Mammon" comes from the earlier "Amaymon" - as a shortened or corrupted form of the name?

        > Similarly, they appear to evolve quite separately, and are associated
        > with quite different vices (Amaymon being violent, and under one aka
        > or other also lustful).

        You say the evolve separately, but I'm hard pressed to find much on the evolution of Mammon except his NT association with such things as wealth and greed.

        > PS, anyone else noticed Abramelin gives NO attribution of the Kings &
        > Princes to the directions?

        Heh, you don't say. lol He also fails to give any zodiacal attributions to the 12 Princes, though I'm fairly convinced they should be there. We can make pretty educated guesses about the four Kings (Lucifer = Cardinal Fire, Leviathan = Cardinal Water, Satan = Cardinal Air, Belial = Cardinal Earth),and we can at least get the proper directions for the four directional Princes from other sources. But we are left swinging in the wind entirely for the middle four (Ashtaroth and his gang).

        LVX
        Aaron
      • Jake Stratton-Kent
        ... hard to say. The paper trail for the Four Kings (as Oriens, Amaymon, Paimon and Egyn) doesn t *yet* reach back as far as the idea itself, mainly with other
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1 June 2013 17:56, AaronL <kheph777@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In solomonic@yahoogroups.com, Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> On 1 June 2013 05:01, AaronL <kheph777@...> wrote:
          >
          >> Mammon only gains rank in specifically Christian demonology over time
          >> (the 'seven princes' notion is C16th!), when Amaymon & his colleagues
          >> were very well established in the grimoires already (probably C12th at
          >> the latest).
          >
          > This could tell us that "Amaymon" did not come from "Mammon" - but couldn't the reverse be the case instead? That "Mammon" comes from the earlier "Amaymon" - as a shortened or corrupted form of the name?

          hard to say. The paper trail for the Four Kings (as Oriens, Amaymon,
          Paimon and Egyn) doesn't *yet* reach back as far as the idea itself,
          mainly with other names (Oriens being the main exception, that's very
          old).

          What does stand out is that Mammon in demonology doesn't connect much
          with the grimoires; 'personalising' him started with the NT. At that
          time Amaymon, whether or not under other names, would already be
          extant and highly personalised. He remained so afterwards, in magic,
          while Mammon was occupying the attention of quite different people.

          Non-magicians write on demonology for a bunch of different reasons;
          like De Plancy making Mammon 'ambassador' to England was political
          satire, not really comparable to geographical rulerships in the
          grimoires, or indeed astrology.
          Weyer's 'Order of the Fly' isn't intended to be taken seriously either
          (he didn't approve of magic, the 'Order' was a send up).

          Of course there are crossovers; Jewish Apocalyptic wasn't written for
          magicians, but sure as hell feeds into magic. There is also lost or
          misplaced information (like the Lucifer/Belzebuth/Astaroth trinity
          didn't start in the C18th, it is Byzantine and maybe older; so from
          way back the Chiefs can come as 3 or 4, while Kings are always 4).

          >> Similarly, they appear to evolve quite separately, and are associated
          >> with quite different vices (Amaymon being violent, and under one aka
          >> or other also lustful).
          >
          > You say the evolve separately, but I'm hard pressed to find much on the evolution of Mammon except his NT association with such things as wealth and greed.

          precisely, prior to that it was just a word - Mammon as a 'god' or
          demon didn't exist previously - even the NT doesn't really describe
          him, personalisation took time, and followed a different route to the
          Four Kings; whose history is longer and separate.

          >> PS, anyone else noticed Abramelin gives NO attribution of the Kings &
          >> Princes to the directions?
          >
          > Heh, you don't say. lol He also fails to give any zodiacal attributions to the 12 Princes, though I'm fairly convinced they should be there. We can make pretty educated guesses about the four Kings (Lucifer = Cardinal Fire, Leviathan = Cardinal Water, Satan = Cardinal Air, Belial = Cardinal Earth),and we can at least get the proper directions for the four directional Princes from other sources. But we are left swinging in the wind entirely for the middle four (Ashtaroth and his gang).

          sort of. There is likely no real rhyme or reason to the table in
          Abramelin - it contains names that can be identified as belonging to
          two older sets of four Chiefs/Kings, but they are jumbled in
          comparison to texts which consider directions, elements etc important.

          Lucifer-Asmodeus- Belzebuth and Astaroth are one set, Abramelin
          doesn't group them that way, but a lot of other sources do. My feeling
          is he's slipped Belial and Leviathan in there (much more usual in
          non-magical demonology) fairly arbitrarily and demoted others to get
          them where he wants them. Of course we've valued Abramelin for over a
          century, and the HGA concept is very important. This doesn't make it a
          terribly reliable source in all other departments, or superior to less
          'spiritual' grimoires of older date as regards these particular
          details.

          Oh, and Asmodal is already a zodiacal 'angel'...

          More clarity can be achieved than at present exists, even if it
          inevitably leaves some loose ends wagging. My next work (another two
          parter) goes a long way towards bringing the Chiefs and Kings out of
          obscurity with many very strong leads to take us forward collectively.
          I'm the first to admit it won't answer all questions, but it sure asks
          more than usual, answers a batch of them and establishes some strong
          lines of development that make all sorts of material both convergent
          and practical. My guess is more will emerge once this gets
          assimilated, with other areas of expertise from within the community
          like astrology, linguistics and so forth adding more light.

          A little patience as I complete the final edit, and these important
          characters can begin to resume their central place in practical magic
          after over a century of virtual neglect.

          ALWays

          Jake

          http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
        • Serpentis Satori
          This could tell us that Amaymon %%% This certainly sounds Aramaic.  Better than Mammon, which is thoughly corrupt.   did not come from Mammon - but
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 5, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            This could tell us that "Amaymon"%%% This certainly sounds Aramaic.  Better than Mammon, which is thoughly corrupt. 
             did not come from "Mammon" - but couldn't the reverse be the case instead? That "Mammon" comes from the earlier "Amaymon" - as a shortened or corrupted form of the name?






























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.