SIGILS-INTRODUCTION

 

Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic and Alchemical Sigils

FRED GETTING

Upgrading and computer graphics

Raymond MARTIN-FABER

INTRODUCTION

When the wise men of old (whom we call in tho Greek tongue 'Philosopners' found any arcana, any hidden things, either of a natural kind, or resulting from the activities of man, they were accustomed to hide these in various ways and with the aid of figures. They did this in order that these Bight not be understood by the wronc; kind of people. CROLLUS, De Signatures, seu vera et viva Anatomia Majoris et Minoris Mundi, 1612.

THE TEXT OF THIS DICTIONARY has been designed as a reference, guide and source-book for chose involved in general occult studies. Towards this end it presents, under 1,500 headings, the meanings of over 9,000 sigils which anpear in European alchemical, astrological, geomantic and related hermetic sources, along with a unique graphic index by means of which the majority of such sigils may be identified.

Before setting out the scope, plan and practical considerations relating to this dictionary, it might be as well for me to explain why I have chosen the relatively rare word sigil to designate the graphic forms dealt with in the text, when the layman might well be tempted to use such words as symbols, signs or even glyphs.

The word symbol is not sufficiently specialised for my purpose, since it carries a literary as well as an iconographic connotation. In a sense, anything may be a symbol of anything else, provided that an analogy is drawn, or some explanation for the symbolising given. Thus, the mediaeval bestiary could take the apparently absurd symbol of the vulture as representative of the Virgin Mary, simply because it was currently believed that a vulture brought forth its young partheno-geneticully. Without a literary explanation, tacit or otherwise, alongside such a symbol, then the meaning would be obscure, and in the example given it not heretical, then at least obscene. Only very rarely does a literary explanation stand between the sigils and their 'meanings' and even then only in the various 'graphic systems' (see for example the entry under ORIGIN), for which adequate bibliographic reference is given wihhin the entry. For example, the curious sigil

is one of the forms for VIRGO, and has been accorded a certain literary tradition which links it with the Virgin Mary: in the entry I have made reference to this possible graphic etymology, from the initials MV (Maria Virgo), even though in ray opinion this etymology is entirely fanciful. The point here is that the 'vulture' symbol requires literary explanation, the sigll for Virgo does not, though such an explanation may throw light on its origin or purpose as a sigil.

The word sign has a very wide application, ranging from gestures and tokens made by the body, to a whole battery of devices designed for the purpose of communication. As a word, therefore, it has connotation far beyond the special sense of 'occult' or 'graphic' which I certainly wish to imply within this dictionary. Additionally, the word sign in this general sense may be easily confused with the word in its special astrological application: the sign of the zodiac is one of the twelve divisions of the ecliptic band, and not, as is sometimes erroneously supposed, the 'graphic symbol' used to denote one of these zodiacal divisions. Thus, the arc of thirty degrees (tropical) between Cancer and Virgo is the sign of the zodiac Leo: a picture of a lion may well be intended to be a symbol of this zodiacal Leo, but the graphic form

is actually the sigil for Leo.

The word glyph is sometimes used in occult contexts, but in its proper application it should be restricted to sculpture and architecture, for it is supposed to refer to symbols appearing in relief work. In the nineteenth century a number of words were derived from 'glyph' relating to the relief processes in the printing industry; perhaps this alone should provide grounds for rejecting the word from the present context. There is no doubt that certain glyphs have become sigils - this is true of many occult sigils derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphics.

For example, the hieroglyph ANKE and its component RU, undoubtedly both glyphic in origin, are now freguently used as sigils in their common forms

  and 

These general observations may indicate why I have felt compelled to adopt the word sigil in the face of apparent competition from other words.

In fact, its very derivation, from the late Latin sigillum, encourages its use within an occult context, for this word appears frequently in mediaeval magical contexts, and has even been used specifically for certain astrological symbols and devices which were supposed to be amuletic in power. Further, the word in the eighteenth century did carry the specialised meaning of 'a small image'. Since most of the graphic forms in this dictionary are to some extent amuletic - that is, charged with power - and many are 'small images' of cosmic processes, and in almost every case linked with the occult, then the word sigil connotes very well the field to which I have restricted myself here.

Having explained the key word of the title for this dictionary, I must now deal with its intended readership. I have designed the text in such a way that it will be valuable to both specialists and general workers in fields directly or peripherally related to occultism. In particular, it is intended for those whose research brings them into contact with occult or hermetic texts, ancient or modern - for historians of the occult, for astrologers, for those interested in the 'history of ideas', for art students and art historians.

The book needs no justification so far as historians of the occult are concerned: without doubt there is a great need for such a work as this. I cannot pretend that the specialist will meet with many sigils from his own field with which he is not already familiar, but one may be certain that he will find in the dictionary some indication of how the sigils familiar to him were seen and interpreted in related fields outside his own specialisation.

This much is guaranteed simply because I have endeavoured to use the sigils recorded by specialists in a wide range of occult and hermetic areas. A specialist in alchemical fields cannot avoid having some passing acquaintance with astrological sigils, for example, but it is unlikely that the full wealth of astrological sigils will have been appreciated by such a specialist. Again, a specialist in astrology, or the history of astrology, may well be surprised to discover the extent to which the development of astrological sigils has been bound yap with the prevailing religious and occult notions concerning the nature of symbolism. Such ideas as these are intimated in the bibliographic sources given alongside the presentation of the sigils.

Practical astrologers arc, by the very nature of their subject, required to have some knowledge of the history of their art, and to be aware of something of the 'graphic theory' underlying the sigils they use. This dictionary will be of great value to such individuals, for it will reveal something of the variety and wealth of astrological sigils and of related graphic theories of symbolism. At the same time, this text may offer a serious challenge to the superficial 'histories of astrology' and 'histories of the occult' which, under different authorship and title, but with much the same moribund content, appear each year with depressing regularity. These sigils, and the sources from which they are abstracted, indicate that the history of astrology and the occult is not at all what the superficial historians suppose. Those who would wish to ccmbat this nonsense could do no better than commence with a study of certain of the source-book material given in support of the sigil forma presented here I know from experience that it is difficult to be a practical astrologer, or interested in the history of the subject, without becoming fascinated by the inner meanings ot the sigils, which speak a language at once arcane and cosmic, reminding one of the definition of a symbol given by HAASE 1975 as 'essentielly purposive... it points to some Higher Order for whose characteristics it is a kind of abbreviation'.

The bibliographic sources give more often than not hints and guesses at the 'Higher Order', at the inner meaning, though in this field, perhaps more than any other, one must have the eyes to see, and the mind to under- stand.

Those individuals who find themselves interested in what is nowadays called 'the history of ideas, but which in aelier days was called merely 'history' on the fair assumption that men were motivated precisely by ideas, and not merely by 'social' or 'economic' pressures, cannot fail to find this dictionary useful, for underlying many ot the sigils one finds traces of an ancient wisdom, expressed in a graphic precision which is surprising. Additionally, the lines of thought expressed in the combinations of sigils and bibliographic reference will provide a fertile ground for further research into the history of ideas, albeit ideas in graphic forms. A useful history of the influence of graphic expression has still to be written, and it would be encouraging to think that the indications set out in this dictionary might contribute to such a work. The study of occult sigils often has the effect oft pulling together certain literary themes with the artistic expression associated with them. For example, the influence of John Dee's curious MONAD

on subsequent graphic theory is considerable, and a grasp of the Englishman's influence on Boehme's use or sigils, so ably studied by FREHER 1717 and introduced to modern scholarship by MUSES 1951, might indicate to the historian lines of thought by which the ideas and painterly expression of William Blake might be approached in a new and valid way. Several of the ideas relating to secret and heretical influences in the history of art set out in GETTINGS 1978 took their origin from a study of sigitls - notably the discoveries relating to the Taurean-Piscean symbolism in that remarkable basilican church of San Miniato al Monts, in Florence, and the curious use of the dual sigils

  and 

in the Roalcrucian symbolism of St. Pierre, in Geneva. Such examples could easily be multiplied - especially in regard to mediaeval and Renaissance works of art.

Such an observation reminds us that art students, and especially those line art students who find themselves interested in arcane matters - a most common thing in the modern climate - will find this collection of sigils a stimulating source for research and experiment. I need hardly say that students of graphics have for a long time been in need of such a bock in order that they might grasp something of the rich graphic tradition which underlies the history of their subject, and even modem symbolism. Not only the sigils themselves, but also the supporting bibliography - especially those titles which deal with graphic theories - will provide stimulus for further research, and perhaps contribute further to the development of a graphic theory of forms.

The general historian requires a dictionary such as this for reasons which scarcely require discussion - the book is designed precisely to aid in the deciphering and amplification of obscure historical documents.

The art historian is, perhaps unwittingly, desperately in need of a book of this nature, fox many of the apparently meaningless scrawls, symbols and decorative motives in mediaeval works of art, costume decorations and so on axe in fact occult sigils, intended to encapsulate meaning, and now require precise identification. The structure of this dictionary provides at least a preliminary statement of the kind of systematic work which may be done in this and related fields. It is becoming increasingly obvious to some historians that the development of arc is itself the history of the injection of powerful ideas from hidden and sometimes unidentifiable sources at important moments in history. For example, at the one extreme of our European culture, we see the dependence of art not only on the banking systems developed by the Medici, but also on the occult ideas which this family encouraged in secret, and which fed the development of Renaissance art to a freedom of human expression rooted in an occultism which only the Council of Trent was able to deflect.

PANOFSKY 1967 has hinted at such roots of occultism in our culture, in much the sane vein as WIND 1958; in a more occult setting, COLLIN 1954 has touched upon the similar occult influences in other contexts. At the other extreme, in modern times we find RINGBOM 1970 indicating the dependence of modern art on the works of such esoteric and occult lines of thought as Theosochy and Anthroposophy. My own study of related themes, in GETTINGS 1976, presents a bird's eye view of this relation-ship between certain occult themes and heretical praxes and the history of art. With such a historical situation revealing itself, we need no justification for attempting a preliminary survey of the occult sigils used by secret schools and individual occultists.

So far as I am aware, this is the first attempt to collect together under one heading, and with an index guide, so large a number of occult sigils. The two books which have to some extent served a similar function as the present one are altogether limited in scope, and do not ever, pretend to the advantages of this dictionary. The work of SOMMERHOFF 1701, which so obviously influenced profoundly the more easily available GESSMANN I906, is restricted to alchemical sigils, and in this realm is indispensable, not merely in the very number of sigils which are presented, but also in the breadth of definition offered.

Excellent as it is, the book is largely unavailable, and is in any case intended for specialist alchemists and for a medical profession which is defunct. The work of SHEPHERD 1971 touches upon the occult field only in the most perfunctory manner, the intention being to provide a worthwhile reference within a modern context of signs and symbols; the occulta which he does record from cabbalistic and hermetic sources are sparse, and give no useful source.

For example, SHEPHERD 1971 gives the sigil :

for the zodiacal sign Capricorn, which is all well and good so far as it goes: my own entry under CAPRICORN lists no fewer than eighty different sigils, alongside bibliographic sources.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to give some indication of how this dictionary was compiled, and an idea of its underlying structure. The work was constructed by the relatively simple, if somewhat tedious and laborious, process of examining and collating a large number of previous compilations which relate occult sigils to particular meanings. The work was rounded off by a thorough survey of the most important texts in which occult theories of symbolism and graphic forms were discussed. The resultant collection of sigils, and their simplified meanings, were then collated, assorted, creamed for utility, and then arranged in alphabetical order, according to meaning, and set out in the form presented in this dictionary. With a vast consumption of index cards, a special graphic index was evolved to facilitate the identification of individual siqils.

This important contribution to the dictionary is explained.

The structure of the main body of the dictionary is that of an alphabetical listing, in which the greater number of some 9,000 sigils have been classified under about 1,500 headings. Each entry is accorded a neading, a hanging indent in capitals, followed by an abbreviated class list, and a reference which contains at least one bibliographic source from just over 300 titles, indicating the provenance of the sigil recorded in the entry. In many cases, the entry includes also a brief note intended as a guide towards a deeper insight into the meaning of the sigil.

Within the dictionary I have included a selection of the more important secret alphabets. All of these are probably too well known to any longer merit the title 'secret', yet their presence in all standard occult works, and their virtually unrecognized survival in certain paintings of an esoteric intent, requires that they at least be touched upon as pertinent to the theme. My aim has been to record the best known of the scripts, and, by virtue of the explicit bibliography of sources, to point the reader to other alphabets, should his interest lead him on to further study. Although I include only about 50 actual alphabets within the body of this work, I accumulated in my researches over 300 which I originally considered worthy of inclusion, and yet, when it cane to the business of seating these down, it seemed merely an offence to the patience of the reader, and carried too far into a relatively obscure specialisation. The short account of the two basic classes of Eurupean scripts - the HEBRAIC SCRIPT and SECRET SCRIPTS - will at least serve as a sort of introduction to this fascinating field, and obviates any elaboration here.

Not only was it not advisable for me to deal with all known secret alphabets, but also it proved impossible to deal thoroughly with each individual script. Generally I have chesen one sample alphabet, even though in almost every case several variants are known to exist. For example, the entry en RUNES is as long and thorough as space permits, yet I did not even touch upon the derivative secret scripts, or the cryptographic use of runes - hence, I make no mention of the tent runes or the branch runes, which a thorough treatment would have to include. Equally, I have not included the numerous 'code' or Temuric alphabets, such as the arbasht in which the first letter of the alphabet is substituted for the last letter, the second for the penultimate, and so on, or the common Albam or Avgad, based on letter substitutions. Such systems, whilst quite certainly used in secret writings, and on magical amulets, are only distantly related to occult symbolism. On similar grounds I have not included any of the cryptic writings connected with Gematria, a system of word exchange based on numerical values, nor the traditional Notarikon, based on the abbreviation of words to the initials of those words (and sometimes te the final letters of those words) giving rise to puzzling secret scripts

The main body of this dictionary, conprising the alphabetical entries, is designed to compress a larqe amount of useful information into a small space, and towarcs this end each entry follows a schema designed to classify and explain the individual siuils.

The hanging catchword in capitals is a heading, which generally indicates the object symbolised by the sigil, rather than the nane of the sigil itself. Wherever possible this heading is the traditional name attached to the object symbolised within the hermetic source from which it was derived. In some cases, however, it has obviously been necessary for me to select or invent a name for identification, even though no indication of the precise name appeared in the source. In such cases I have simply used my own discretion, For example, the choice of the word WRATH for the sigil given by Boehme

might be reasonably questioned by those unfamiliar with Boeme's cosmology, yet this word catches mure precisely the theosophist's high anthropomorphic vision, than would a word such as DARK ocr NEGATIVE, which might well be ased to contrast with his sigil for that outpouring which he calls LIGHT, and to which he gives the mirror image sigil

I have wherever possible used one wurd for the heading, but this should not blind dfib to the fact that all occult sigils are multilayer in meaning; for once BLAVATSKY 1877 was not being obscure when she clained that many occult sigils are intended to be read en seven levels! It is probably this undoubted septenary nature of sigillic meaning which to some extent explains why I feel somewhat frustrated in the definitions I have given many of these sigils, for virtually every sigil could be the subject of ar least a paragraph of explanation, and in some cases, indeed, as with suah sigils as the ankh

the sphraqis

or the monad

a wohle book might well be usefully written. The format of the bock has determined thath the meaning of each sigil be dealt with mainliy by providing a reference - by setting the sigil in an available context - with the result that many of the multilayer connotations and dynamic spacularions implicit within the sigillic form have been ignored. In some cases I have even bad to ignore some of the more important bibliographic sources for such ideas, in order to avoid perplexing the reader with too much complexity of supportive explanation. For example, it would have been possible to present a deeply esoteric explanation for the analysis in STEINER 1906 for the sigil for CANCER

relating it to the activity of the soul, and revealing the duality of the sigil as expressive of a corresponding duality within the soul, involved with the power of the soul to construct the physical body. No justice may be done in brief to STEINER 1906, and indeed a thorough treatment of the idea behind his explanation would take us into a literature as ancient as Porphyry, as modern as Goethe. In such cases I have restrained myself, and have substituted in the place of prolix explanation and bibliographic reference a set of more 'accessible' explanations, in the hope that the mere bibliographic reference will induce the reader to further research. This does not mean, of course, that the deeply esoteric has been entirely expunged but it does mean that the esoteric is merely hinted at, in order to avoid obfuscation. The attendant limitations of explanation are to be experienced especially in connexion with the sigils from the hermetic Rosicrucian stream, and in the explanation of sigils derived from such authors as Boehme and Blavatsky, in which cases my entries are in almost every case virtually apologetic thumb-nail sketches of profoundly significant occult vision.

Arising from this endemic complexity of the occult tradition has been my doubt, in some cases, as to how the sigils should be named. This is a problem which is especially prevalent in the alchemical sections, for it is in this field that the nomenclature is especially rich. For example, the encyclopaedie work of SOMMERHOFF 1701 lists no fewer than 40 different names for SAL AMMONIAC, and even more for SULPHUR, and yet I was reduced to presenting such material under one heading. The impossibility of doing this sensibly in every case has resulted in a degree of duplication of sigils, and the provision of entries which might be taken - by those involved in exoteric studies, at least - as the same substance or conception. Needless to say, I have attempted to avoid the complex cross-referencing to which this 'endemic complexity' leads, and wherever possible I have used the most well-known traditional name.

Immediately after each heading, the entry is prefaced by an abbreviation for the class list, the group of hermetic studies in which rhe sigil is most commonly found. Those abbreviations are :

Alc. Alchumicral

Ast. Astrological

Geo. Geomantic

Mag. Magical

Occ. Occult

Pal. Palmistic

Rel. Religious

Naturally, it will be found that there is considerable overlapping of boundaries, especially among the sigils used in the astrological and alchemical contexts. I have tried to avoid confusion, and yet have attempted at the same time to be fairly comprehensive, by using a system of cross-reference. For example, the astrological JUPITER is referred to the alchemical TIN, and the two entries constructed separately , even though it is understood that the two groups of sigils are frequently interchangeable.

The Alchemical group includes by far the greatest number of sigils, mainly because for almost two thousand years there has been a tradition of listing sigils and their names, and many such lists have survived. In order to avoid prolixity, and the mere recording of sigils for the sake of recording. I have restricted myself largely to compiling these entries from some twenty or so books and manuscripts which I myself regard as the best keys to the sigils. Additionally, I have exercised my own discretion as to which sigils to include, rejecting all the dubious ones, and those without clear or agreed meanings. This explains why I have in some cases suppressed certain of the meanings from the sigils given in such sources as THESAURUS 14C, for example, since a few of these are illegible or dubious as copies; it explains also why I have not recorded some of the sigils in the invaluable GESSMANN 1906, since certain of the meanings recorded - and indeed, certain of the sigils - are questionable.

I have In almost every case restricted myself to reproducing the sigils which have entered in the Western tradition, which has of course meant that many useful lists have been rejected. This explains why the lists of Greek sigils preserved so thoroughly by ZUKETTI 1932 have not been incorporated to any extent into my text, whilst the other, less generous lists, from such sources as BFRTHELOT 1885 have been included. Equally, the vastt nunbers of Arabic, Egyptian and Syrian sigils which may be found in manuscripts and in specialist articles, have not been included, save tnose which are (perhaps) interesting from the point of view of graphic etymology, and the forms relating to astrology, given by such authors as LUEDY 1928, within a larger study of ayinboilm. In view of this it might surprise the reader to find so many sigils which have been preserved from the Hebraic tradition, yet here I would argue that many of these sigillic forms have found their way - albeit unrecognized - into the mainstream symbolism of mediaeval and Renaissance art. Many of the 'decorations' and apparently meaningless 'doodles' on the hems of Saint clothing in such works of art are in fact derived from the orient and from the Hebraic, in an 'araoism' which would have shocked many mediaeval artists, had they recognised their sources: Many of these sigils are obviously derived from secret alphabets (which is one reason why I have included such textual scripts within the present work), other are more perplexing, being both difficult to track down and interpret, even when found alongside forms more easily identifiable - as for example along the Madonna'n hen in Raphael's Ansidei Madonna in the National Gallery. London, only one of which is immediately recognisable as being from the astrological or alchemical traditions :

The standard gil for PISCES

which is or course extremely significant within the context of the secret structure and symbolism of this painting. On the other hand, fascinating sigils for which I was able to determine a meaning from a separate text which was not itself a Western form led to difficulties.

The Astrological entries have received a more thorough "graphic etymological' treatment than the others. This hase been possible simply because extant documentration permits a clearer picture of the development of these sigils to ce constructed. Surprisingly, these astrological sigils reveal graphic etymologies which confound the more popular theories concerning their forms. I have avoided recording the more irresponsible and imaginative 'graphic etymologies' which have been accorded many of the astrological sigils, yet at the same time I have attempted to give some indication of the common idea underlying a particular forn by recording the popular etymology, even in those cases where I know this not to be accurate. Thus, I have avoided mentioning the imaginative interpretations of SUCHER 1971, and yet have recorded the antiquated suggestions of AGRIPPA 1510, and even the modern 'rationales' by such astrologers as HONE 1951, Inevitably, in view of the close tie which used to exist between astrology and astronomy, one or two or the sigils recorded for astrology are still in use in astronomical circles. I have tried, however, to avoid recording the large number of abbreviations, symbols and short-forties which are used in modern astronomy, except of course when these are found also in hermetic sources. Needless to say, I have refrained from including the astrological sigils accorded highly specialist meanings in the various sequences of the secret alphabets which include astrological forms; even so, in one or two cases I have found it necessary to refer to certain of these, for the sake of clarity, as for example in the entry for ASCENDANT. In a few cases, especially where the astrological bordered on the purely occult areas, a number of sigils are known to me which I have not been able to include in the present work simply because they are not drawn or reproduced alongside literary explications. One of the most interesting of such sigils is that found on the sword blade in the hand of Michael in Piero Sella Francesca's famous painting in the National Gallery, London :

So far as I know, this sigil has no attestation, yet it is extremely important as a symbol in that it is found frequently in Michaelic imagery. Now, whilst this sigil is not (so far as I am aware) discussed in any of the books on symbolism, it is quite clearly linked with the concept of Michael as the leader of the seven so-called Archangels (in fact, in Trithemian lore, the Secundadeis) which came into Western occultism from the Arabs, by way of Peter of Abano. It is, furthermore, a sigil actually described in extant literature, for the SOHAR SHEHOTH refers to Six luminosities (which) form a circle, surrounding a seventh Luminosity in the centre, a description which is precisely reflected in the Michael ic sigil. This sigil is linked with many occult ideas - with the concept of the QUINTESSENCE (in that the outer circle is the basis for the hexaqrammic sigil of the ELEMENTS:

and it would be no difficult matter to link the sigil, via TRITHEMIUS 1522, with the 'Seven Ages' or periodicities, and indeed with many other septenaries. Such sigils I could not properly include within this Dictionary, in spite of their intrinsic interest to ne, and their undoubted importance within the esoteric tradition.

The Geomantic section refers exclusively to the correct use of the word, and not to anything suggested by the modern popular misuse, Geomancy properly relates to the art of contacting spirits by means of earths, stones and minerals, usually in order to predict the future. The so- called 'geomuncy' associated with ley-line studies, which arc so popular, and so misunderstood, today, is merely an example of the wrongful annexing of an ancient word which had already a specific connotation und denotation. The misuse, which is daily on the increase, very probably arose because those who developed the various ley-line theories were unfamiliar with the deeper occult tradition, and certainly unfamiliar with spiritoid prediction. The misuse was thoroughly compounded by a common failinq among nineteenth-century sinologists in translating the Chinese term feng shui, a system distantly related to the modern telluric studies of ley-lines, quite wronyly as 'geomancy'. The traditional geomancy of Western occultism is a predictive art, involved with contacting spirit agencies, and it is in this sense that the entries are included in this text.

The Magical entries are limited almost exclusively to the more common of the numerous sigils apportioned to the vast hordes of demons. This list is short within the present text because I have felt it necessary to limit demonic activity, for fear it would possess entirely the book. My aim has been to record only the most interesting sigils, and then only those for the more infamous demons. I have limited the choice strictly to those which are simple in form. A glance through the hundreds of demon sigils in any common grimoire or specialist text - for example, SCHEIBLE 1848 - will indicate something of the temptations of complexity and inutility which I have managed to resist:

are two examples of sigils for MEPHISTOPHIEL which I did not record from the many supplied by SCHEIBLE 1848. Within this magical section I have avoided also recording protective sigils, such as talimans used to ward off the evil eye, and those designed to attract beneficent farces or spirits. The majority of these sigils are the equivalent of emotional doodles, with none of the cosmic significance of true occult sigils. They are best left in oblivion, and in any cane usually legitimately exclude themselves from the present context simply because they do not. express a clear meaning. An exception to this veto is the inclusion of many early Christian sigils (especially those presented so ably by TESTA 1962) which were originally either occult or esoteric, and were later quietly appropriated for magical and talismanic use.

The Occult entries include those sigils which do net fall easily into any of the other categories, and which still express occult ideas, if only by virtue of being involved with a graphic system of occult thought or symbolism. Such consideration underlies the reason why the entry under CROSS is marked Occ. rather than Rel., for it is precisely the occult context which is of interest to us, rather than the traditional religious view. It may be found that within this general Occult series I have had to exercise more fully than in other sections my prerogative to provide verbal equivalents for sigils which were not given names by their originators or recorders, I have tried to mitigate the effects of this by providing useful cross-reference.

The Palmistry section is admittedly the shortest, and the sigils within it might well have been swallowed up by the Occult heading, save for the fact that Palmistry is not strictly speaking an occult study, even though the symbols and sigils used in the chirognomical and chiromantic traditions are derived from occult sources.

The Religious entries are restricted exclusively to those sigils which are linked with the occult stream in general, or with the hermetic stream of esoteric Christianity in particular. In making choice of sigils from the vast number available, I have had to exercise ay own judgement, without giving specific reasons far particular inclusions. For example, when I record the ancient sigil given by BOCK 1931 as symbolic of CHRIST, from a glyph recorded in the tomb of Domitilla

I chose the sigil because of its connexion with the Piscean imagery attached to Christ (see GETTINGS 1978), and because it combines solar imagery, as well as the cross, integrated within the mere obvious image of fin anchor. The neighbouring glyphs in this same source

could hardly be taken as symbolic of Christ in that there is no supporting evidence - they are no doubt esoteric glyphs, and whilst one may make an informed guess at their meaning, one does not actually know what they mean. It would not have been possible to discuss in detail all such choices and rejections in the construction of this book. One may take it that if a common symbol which has found its way inco a sigil form is not included in the text, then tnere may be serious doubts as to the meaning ascribed to it. This certainly explains why I have rejected so many of the sigils in such a work as VERARDI 1972, for many of these, in spite of being accorded an esoteric meaning in connexion with the trulli art of Alberobello, really belong to the exoteric tradition, and in most cases permit quite other interpretations to those given by VERARDI 1972.

Following the class abbreviation is the actual entry which, without exception, gives a bibliographic reference to the list of literary sources. This reference consists of a word and date. The word is either the name of the author or a keyword taken from the title of the work, chosen in order to provide a distinctive reference; the date is the date of publication (not always the first edition), or the century of compilation. This date is not in itself intended to indicate the antiquity of the sigil given in the reference, but merely designates an accessible source as a starting point for further research. This explains why certain of the astrological forms, though Graeco-Byzantine, are recorded by the modern references such as BERTHELOT 1855 or NEUGEBAUER 1959.

This bibliographic reference is provided also as a source-list for those who wish to pursue more deeply the levels of meaning ascribed to particular sigils, or revealed in various graphic etymologies. This of course means that the bibliography has been limited to those texts which record specifically thy sigils, as well as give an explanation or account of their denotation or meaning. This explains why, for example, I have chosen to quote BLAVATSKY 1883 in connexion with rhe CROSS symbolism without mention of the important RAGON 1853 (the source upon which BLAVATSKY 1888 leaned), simply because no sigils are given by RAGON 1853. For similar reasons neither BUHCKHARDT 1958 nor GUENON 1975, both of whom deal excellently with the symbolism of the cross, arc mentioned in the entry. Since I have determined to include material from texts which give both a sigil and an explanation for the sigil, I have in some cases omitted some sigils simply because no graphic torm was recorded in the sources where the sigils themselves were described, and their meanings given.

For example, if merely the literary traditions had been my concern, then it would have been possible to give the sigil

under the entry for ETHERIC, for there exist descriptions of such a sigil (as a 'five-pointed star') in, for example, BLAVATSKY 1888, associated with the glyph which I have seen many tintes on ancient remains in Egypt. In its glyph form the sigil is sometimes shown with the sigil for the Sun

and it would of course have been useful tu record this solar-centred figure, for within the traditional occult casmogenesis the etheric forces are linked directly with the sun itself (see for example WACHSHUTH 1923). Occultists are aware that this sigil symbolises the etheric body - is indeed a vestigial drawing of the human etheric body itself - and in this connexion bad a profound influence on early Christian art. For example, the so-called orantes in catacomb paintings are not in fact intended to show figures in prayer, as most art historians assume, but as BOCK 1931 says, are 'representatives of the departed', being schematic drawings of the liberated etheric body. However, whilst several good occult sources do give descriptions (and indeed diagrams) of this symbolic form, I have not been able to find a graphic representation alongside a name or a meaning. For this reason I have had to omit the sigil from the text.

With all these bibliographic references there is the danger that in simply abstracting a sigil from its context much of the complexity, and certainly its multi-layer structure, will be lost. An example of this may bo found in the simple entry under SWASTIKA, the sigil said to be the oldest of all graphic symbols. The entry deals only briefly with the meaning of the sigil, yet as BLAVATSKY 1877 says, 'It is not too much to say that the compound symbolism of this universal and most suggestive of signs contains the key to the seven great mysteries of the Kosmos' - a daunting enough thought tor any compiler of sigils. Thus, my biblio-graphic reference after SWASTIKA is intended to point to some of the occult depth within BLAVATSKY 1877, and in turn to the various biblio-graphic references which this author herself adduces.

The inclusion of references under the conditions set out above has of course led to the use of certain titles which might - and with good reason - be sneered at by the academic purist For example, the highly personalised symbolism of KOCH 1930, who in fact reveals little knowledge of occult symbolism, has been included because his sigils and meanings, whatever their merit, have already entered into the bloodstream of occult symbolism. The same might be said concerning the work of CIRLOT 1962, who demonstrates little real familiarity with graphic symbolism, yet through his writings has influenced a whole generation towards a particular method of interpretation. Naturally, such imaginative constructions, whatever their intrinsic value, must be recorded in such a work as this: no good lexicographer could afford to reject a word from his dictionary simply because it is sometimes spelled wrongly, or given a silly definition!

It follows from this procedure that the scholarship underlying my own researches has had to encompass all levels of academicism, ranging from the brilliance of NEUGESAUER 1943, who has put the study of the ancient sigils on an entirely new footing, to the embarrassment of ALBERTUS 1974, who cannot spell even the English names attached to the sigils he lists, let alone the Latin.

The sigils themselves are listed chronologically by date of bibliographic reference, and then alphabetically within the same chronological period. In a few cases, as for example in the entry PLANETARY SYMBOLS, I have treated the entry alphabetically throughout, in order to avoid confusion. It is evident that the date attached to the reference does not always indicate the earliest known use of a particular sigil, even though in many cases it does give some indication of the period during which the sigil was being used with a particular meaning. It is worth pointing out here that the dating of sigils - particularly occult sigils - is generally a most difficult exercise. Even in those cases where it is possible to track down the provenance in a general way, a precise date is generally elusive. For example, it is possible to indicate the provenance of the modern sigil for the Sun

as being Italy (perhaps Florence) round about 1480; yet one cannot determine from available sources whence this sigil was derived for occult use. My article under SOLAR 1978 sets out some of the problems regarding this particular sigil, and this may be taken as representative of the general problem of dating sigils. The problems which arise in regard to the dating of alchemical sigils is even more pronounced than with the astrological ones, for these have been copied and recopied with more or less care from late mediaeval sources, many of which are now lost. Generally I have followed in the footsteps of GESSMANN 1906, and have merely indicated that they are 'mediaeval', even when informed guesswork would suggest that they are much older.

It may surprise the layman that even the relatively modern sigils for the signs of the zodiac and the planets are difficult to date. Whilst one may survey the development of their forms from Graeco-Byzantine sources, in most cases the modern forms did not appear until relatively late. My own view is that they were promulgated by esoteric schools - perhaps indeed by the School of Chartres and its subsidiaries - but there is, so far as I know, no certain historical records which show by whom or when such work was done. Certainly, the introduction of printing to the West had a profoundly settling effect on the forms of the sigils, if only by virtue of the fact that typefaces generally included the range of specially cut founts of astrological sigils.

This might have been a convenient point to present a commentary on the history of the theory underlying occult symbolism, which has a considerable bearing on the development of the sigils: however, the sigils themselves have left little space here for such a study, and I must content myself with augmenting the bibliography with certain relevant works which themselves deal with the history, even though within specific and somewhat specialised scholastic areas. The development of alchemical sigillic forms has been treated with reasonable thoroughness - for example in the excellent works of CROSLAND 1962, CARBONELLI 1925 and ZURETTl 1932. On the other hand, virtually everything written around che theory of astrological symbolism does not stand the test of even the most elementary scholastic; investigation - though such authors as Brouault 1664, Kriegsmann 1665, HUET 1679 (whose ideas appear to have influenced most modern writers on the subject) are worth study. The theory of occultist symbolism fares only a little better, simply because those who did know (as opposed to those who pretended to know) wrote little, and usually about only a few of the sigils. Thus, the excellent work of BLAVATSKY L888, whilst worth close study, vields few sigils, yet the relatively imaginative work of WIRTH 1927, in which he attempts to reconcile the tradition of the Hebraic and neo-Platonic Cabbalistic tradition with the alchemical tradition, with a view to throwing light on the 22 major arcana of the Tarot pack, produces many sigils, most of which are of little real value within the esoteric setting of the sigillic tradition. In the comparison evinced here, the numerates are perhaps less important than the qualities of the work involved: BLAVATSKY 1888 did know what she was writing about, whereas WIRTH 1927 did not, yet (such is the development of such things in popular occultism) it is the sigillic forms of Wirth which are now more widely spread In our culture, and even used by those who should know better.

An entry which gives more information than a mere bibliographic reference is generally intended either to throw more light on a particular sigil, or to suggest ideas for further research: in no way is such an entry designed to give a full account of the derivation or meaning of a sigil. One of the main problems in the approach to occult sigils is that the majority of them mean very many things, and in some cases the precise meaninq may be gathered only from a given nontext. For example, in the single manuscript I list as ALCHEMY 1650, the sigil

is accorded three different meanings - REVERBERATIO, EARTH and SALT - and it is only from a particular context that one may decide which of these three meanings is intended by the sigil.

This problem is further complicated by the undisguised intention of many alchemical texts to speak in riddles, presumably to the initiated few. A good example may be found in the alchemical term AIR, for which the moat common sigil is a variant on

The uninitiated might quite reasonably assume that the name and the sigil refer to the mixture of gases in which we are immersed, but a survey of the SHORT LEXICON of WAITE 1894 will rapidly disenchant him, for this records that 'Eugenius Philalethes says that the air is not an element, but a certain miraculous hermaphrodite, the element of two worlds, and a medley of extremes. It is the sea of things invisible, and retains the species of all things what- soever. It is also the envelope of the life of out sensitive spirit. The First Matter of the philosophers is compared to air because of its restlessness.

Such considerations should rightly lead those interested in matters of scholarship to exercise caution when consulting this Dictionary, for there may be no doubt whatsoever that the terms used by the early occultists do not always correspond to the meanings we take for granted in our modern usage. A perusal of the encyclopaedic SOMMERHOFF 1701 will quickly demonstrate the absurdity of assuming that the meanings are even remotely the same - indeed, a glance at the notes on Venus microcosmi in the entry under VENUS should indicate some of the difficulties here. Again, a reading of the entry under PHLEGMA in the text is also relevant, for it might be reasonable to assume that the phlegma of the alchemists was that sputum to which we refer when we use, the derivative term, or perhaps linked with the theory of the humours, and hence tied up with the rich theories of the TEMPERAMENTS - however, as SOMMERHOFF 1701 reveals, this phlegma is an especially important distilled liquid used in the alchemical search for the Philosopher's Stone, and presumably the sigils given alongside the name would refer to the alchemical meaning, rather than to anything merely modern. Thus, in specialist work, where a precision of meaning is required, it would be as well to consult such a specialist as SOMMERHOFF 1701, or a similar reliable Lexicon, in order to ascertain the real meaning contained within the sigil, as intended by those who used the sigil. Specialist requirements apart, however, the present Dictionary has been designed so that it corresponds to modern denotations and connotations (the frequent use of the Latin names is intended as a mute reminder that a strict translation does not always carry one to the sense intended in a modern usage), though naturally within a field where it is taken for granted that things are rarely what they seed to be. It is probably because so many of the ancient sigils were intended for levels of understanding which are no longer generally accessible that the complicated diagrams and co-ordinations of sigils in such a text as GEHEIME 1788 are, for all their apparent aim of setting out Rosicrucian lore, largely incomprehensible save to a few specialists. No dictionary may take into account such refinements and complications, and the result is that certain of the explanations of the sigils are en a level somewhat removed from the levels intended by the early occultists. A fine example of this loss of meaning may be seen in the sigil for SULPHUR

which may in one context refer precisely to the element, in another to the fixed principle underlying natural phenomena, in another to the alchemical union of Earth and Fire, and on another level simply to 'Spirit'. On each of these different levels, the materiality of sulphur itself (and consequently its sigil) may be related to one of the Three Principles, the sigils for which are

the potentialities emanating from the Chaos of Materia Prima. Such considerations as these indicate how, in the field of hermetic symbolism at least, a linear thinking is almost a hindrance to right understanding; yet the fact is that all classification systems - especially those of a dictionary - are in themselves linear in form and intention.

It is clear therefore that, the nature of hermetic symbolism being what it is, the need to be usefully simple has led to the sacrifice of a certain quality of 'inner' meaning. For example, in the alchemical text GABELLA 1615, which is in some respects a model of occult graphic symbolising, it is difficult to root out the many subtle explanations of the sigil

which is termed NuntiuSi and which I have listed quite simply as MERCURY, in a wild injustice to both Mercury and GABELLA 1615.

In this seventeenth-century text the sigil is treated in the manner of the best alchemical texts, which is to say with apparent confusion. The author's hints and guesses are obviously designed to discourage linear thinking, and if followed expertly do indeed lead to a series of multi-dimensional meanings which are very impressive in themselves, though hard to resolve into a few explanatory words such as would be required of a dictionary of this kind. The meaning is indeed to be eased out of this hermetic text, in the process beloved by the tortuous, highly spiritual, sentient-thinking of the late-mediaeval alchemists. In regard to his sigil Numtius GABELLA 1615 points out that this is the Mercurial Nuncio, suggesting that it is both a mediator between the solar and lunar farces, as well as between the solar and the elemental. By subtle choice of words he indicates that Mercury must contain a dangerous element itself, in that it mediates between the volatile Sulphur and the inert Salt of the Philosophers, the former being an especially difficult substance to handle. Since Mercury does partake of danger, it is linked with the planet Mars, the idea being a visual throwback to a previous sigil which shows 'Mystical Mars' as a sigil composed of Sun, Moon and the four Elements (a form related to the MONAD of DEE 1564) . The word chosen by GABELLA 1615 for Mars is a corrupt form of the Latinised Greek Pyroesis, obviously intended to suggest the burning nature - a quality which one would not immediately associate with Mercury, even chough its volatility is well recognised. Here then, in one paragraph, two or three diaqrams, and a few literary allusions, one has nuances which link the 'planet' Mercury with cosmic forces, with the Sun and the Earth, with the alchemical processes, with the danger of such processes, with inner fire, and indeed with the whole cosmic question of Martian forces, along with its well-known undertones of degeneration and regeneration (through its planetary rulership over the zodiacal Scorpio and Aries). There is no obvious way in which even an indication ot such subtle 'sentient-thinking' - almost Chinese in its literary and pictographic allusion - may be expressed briefly, as would befit a dictionary entry. I have, therefore, stripped merely one idea from this multi-layer structure, and have left only the bibliographic reference as crutch for the reader. This is unfortunately the case for many of the entries, but the very nature of occultism appears to demand such treatment.

In certain cases I may appear to have exceeded my brief, Cor I have felt it appropriate to give meanings for sigils which have not been allocated a precise meaning by an author, but which have been 'explained' by a further image, sigti or symbolic design. This happens rurely in the text, but a notable example is from MICHAELSPACHER 1616, who gives twelve intriguing sigils alongside his images for the constellations or zodiacal signs. For example, the sigil

is given beneath the image for Taurus. These sigils are not explained within the text, but are in fact meaningful when the zodiacal associations with either certain alchemical processes or certain materials are taken into account.

In this particular case, it is true that my entries give three alternative 'mednings' - a zodiacal, a materiality and a process - which may even be considered conjectural, but. I feel that this is better than offering no explanation at all for this well-known group of sigils.

I have fait little compulsion to include the graphically interesting sigils given by such sources as HASSENFRATZ 1787, fox whilst these dc have the appearance of being 'occult sigils', and are in many respects derived from the tradition of alchemical symbolising, the system is designed to serve the new spirit of scientific inquiry, and may therefore not be considered occult in the sense understood within this present context. In a sense, it has been difficult to determine at what point one should draw a line between the 'occult' and what is merely exotic or or exoteric symbolism; no doubt my choices and exclusions will not please every reader, Tn this sense, then, save within the obvious occulta of literature, especially in those fields relating to Theosophy or Anthroposophy, and to some of the 'inventions' of KOCH 1930 or CIRLOT 1962, my study of the sigilla may be said to terminate with the work of DALTON 1808, or with the like-minded HASSENFRATZ 1787. If we seek a 'symbol' of the influence of eighteenth-century rationalism on the development of sigillic forms, then we may see it in the proposal of the latter author - authors, indeed - who sought to distinguish the 'earths' by the Aristotelian form

and the alkalis, potash and scdas, with the

thereby, in the innocent use of a sigil narking a profound break with an ancient tradition. This is oy no means the place to make a study of the modern symbolism which has attached itself to modern Chemistry since those days - CROSLAND 1962 has sketched a useful outline of this development - but the fact that I end more or less with DALTON 1808 in the alchemical realm should not lead the reader to suppose that this is the end of the matter for other occult areas. It is worth observing, indeed, that whilst the alchemical tradition appears wholly swallowed in the modern Chemistry, until this latter once more discovers or recalls its original purpose, the sister arts of astrology and its embracing occultism have survived relatively intact, and are both spawning new sigils and symbols, though admittedly of less validity and vitality than those promulgated by the ancient mystery centres.

The very nature of the subject has required that I exercise a controlled personal discrimination, especially in those cases where the precise meanings of sigils are not known - for example, only a few of ths sigils used on the embroideries of his figures by Raphael are still known to us, and therefore I have included only those which are understood (without entering into the refined areas of academic polemics) - in the case of the majority of the sigils for spirits I have been especially careful to record only the most frequent. For example, I think that there would be little purpose in listing the numerous sigils given in TRITHEMIUS 1650, ranging from the relatively decorative

for the spirit Camam, to the laconic forms such as

for Camiel,

for Malgaras, or

for Cabariel. In regard to the secret scripts which abound in occult manuscripts, I have resisted the temptation to include certain of the forms, alphabets and sigils which are not strictly occult, even when these have obviously been designed for purposes involved with what would nowadays be termed 'black magic'. Most of the demonological secret scripts are virtually the equivalent of private shorthand.

Above all, I have chosen to be limited in the choice of which sigils to include by size and complexity. It would have been aesthetically pleasing to give the large sigils for the demons which appear in certain of the more extensive demonological manuscripts, as for example tho seventy-two spirit sigils from LEMEGETON 17C, of which the following are three :

Equally exciting would have been the record of the lovely sigils from the thirty-six dccans recorded in LAMBECIUS 15 :

Unfortunately, the very complexity of their forms render it impossible to copy them out on the scale envisaged within the present format and scope. Exclusion is partly justified in any case simply because the majority of these are not so much sigils as decorative motifs or designs. One feels that in such exclusions due to size it is the Rosicrucian sigils which have suffered especially, as a glance through such a text as GEHEIME 1788 will confirm. Thus, even the ROSY CROSS itself was almost rejected as a sigil, for even the most simple form of the rose at the centre of the cross is graphically complicated. Reluctantly, I have also excluded the occult images in FREHER 1717, for these are highly pregnant symbols, verging aimcst on the domain of symbolic devices, rather than sigils, and whilst it would have been useful to give a record of this worthy summary of Boehme's cosmoconception, the present format precluded this. Natural y a sigil may range In size from a mere dot to the elaborate design of the LAMBECIUS 1500 decanates just reproduced, and this has meant that there has had to be some fine borderline at which a sigil is included or rejected because of size, I have been somewhat eccentric in regard to this borderline, and have not felt it necessary to explain myself, except in terms of what I consider to be useful within the expressed aims of this dictionary. For example, whilst the very sizes of the sigils given by BEHTHELOT 1887 for the so-called 'mystic drawings' from Greek sources, which no doubt were intended to represent alchemical operations (perhaps analogous to our own atomic equations) has led to rejection

I have none the less included the large and relatively complex sigil for SCOKPIO from the mediaeval Italian source given as LUCCA 17C

and many variants of the sigils for fixed stars, such as those listed in Appendix 2 from AGRIPPA 1531.

A not her factor I have had to bear in mind in regard to the question of inclusion and rejection is that of utility. Had I recorded sigils merely because they are 'occult', without reference to nodern needs, then there would have been no end to the volumes of this book. I have been very selective in terms of what I feel is needed by a fairly specialist reading public. For example, following what I imagine to be the needs of a modern render, I have rejected almost all the fascinating sigils in KIRCHER 1655, quaint and imaginative as they are - these sigils would be of value only to a specialist in seventeenth-century transcriptions of foreign alphabets, ideas and occulta, far removed from the traditions with which we are dealing here. In any case, such a specialist would be sufficiently familiar with KIRCHER 1655 not to require the aid of a dictionary, save in the questions of minutiae, in view of such an important exclusion, it might be argued that I have included some material which is dubious. For example, an alert reader might argue that the sigils for the lunar mansions which I do include are not in fact sigils, but merely visual guides or mnemonics, for those who sought to locate the areas along the ecliptic. They might argue, for example, that the form I give for VENTER ARTETIS, the second mediaeval lunar mansion, is not in fact a sigil, but three stars along the ecliptic, delta Arietis (sometimes called Butein), epsilon and zeta Arietis. Such an argument would be supported by an examination of the night sky, and also by the tact that the twenty-first mansion, called Desertum (by a delicate twist of irony, Al Baldah, 'the City', is the Arabian manzil equivalent), is given no sigil by the source MANSTONES 14C, and is merely located between the mansions PASTOR and TREBS. No doubt the origin of these curious sigils - if indeed they are sigils - must be sought in the distribution of the fixed stars which nark the entrances to the twenty eight mansions - in marked a contrast to the sigils for the signs and constellations.

However, certain lists, as for example that given by ABANO 1303, show that early attempts were made to originate or preserve sigils for the lunar mansions, as though for magical purposes probably involving simple amulet construction.

It is especially in regard to sigils known to be derived from ancient texts that I have exercised discretion, since many of these have now little value, and in the majority of cases their precise meaning and application have been lost. Thus, many of the Greek sigile listed in such sources as FRESNE 1638 or OMONT 1894 have been rejected. Not only have many of the ancient sigils names which are obscure in application, and even the subject of remote academic argument, but also the names have frequently no known application within occult contexts. For example, the sigil

given under the name

which may mean 'a firebrand', 'a blister', or 'a chilblain', which may be a mistake for the

which is an astrological term for a sign preceding a nodal centre, may as a sigil be taken as a close relation to the Greek form of DAIMON - such considerations would lead more to confusion than clarification in an encyclopaedic entry. On the other hand, certain sigils which have survived, but which refer to ideas no longer used or understood in occult contexts, have an antiquarian or palaeoglyphic interest. For example, the sigil recorded by OMONT 1894 for the pars called for which the sigil is

had a wide application as one of the important

in Greek astrology: this sigil has been recorded for its antiquarian interest even though it refers to an idea long fallen out of us« by astrologers.

The problem of 'meaning' is especially acute in the ancient texts, and in some cases it is possible to form an approximate idea of the particular occult significance of a sigil only from the form of that sigil itself.

For example, the Greek term

recorder by OMONT 1894, has itself a very wide application, meaning in general 'an assembly' or 'meeting', and it has specialised use within grammatical , fiscal and even sexual contexts. The Greek sigil attached to this name

is a compound of Greek forms for Moon and Sun, and these leave one in no doubt that a syzygy is implied, even though this could relate to the astrological aspect of conjunction or opposition, and even though it is possible that the sigil was intended to express a synodic relationship between the two luminaries, ae these periods were of great importance to the Greek astrologers, and relate to certain 'mystic numbers' attached to the planets. More specifically, the sigil could refer to the metonic cycle of 19 solar years, 235 lunar months, or to the 25 so-called 'Egyptian years' of 409 lunar months. An attempt to arrive at a true understanding of the original meaning of the sigil is beset with difficulties beyond the capability of the merely academic mind, and such a sigil may be recorded for purely antiquarian reasons. At times, however, specialist knowledge may unravel the meaning of certain sigils otherwise lost to us so far as meaning is concerned. For example, the word

for which the sigil (more precisely, abbreviation)

has been given, has a meaning both within a magical connotation, involved with cleromancy, and within a specialised astrological meaning, relating to the rnodem conception of pars, and it is from the astrological contexts recorded by scholars such as FRESNE 1688 that one is led to ascribe an astrological meaning to the sigil. More generally, however, it is impossible, without extensive palaeographic study, to determine the particular application, and only a general hint of meaning is possible, with the result that it would be quite fatuous to include the sigil in a dictionary of this kind. Against this, it must be admitted that certain sigils with distinctive names have not been considered worthy of inclusion simply because their definitions are unknown, and their application within an occult context unclarified.

In relation to the Greek and Latin texts in particular, I have tried to avoid recording mere abbreviations, on the principle that this is supposed to be a dictionary ot sigils. Naturally, this does not mean that I have excluded those abbreviations which are clearly intended to rank as sigilla (as for example the Greek sigil K/ just mentioned), and those sigils which are clearly derived from abbreviations, as for example the forms recorded under ASCENDANT. This rule has led to the exclusion of certain forms which historians might regard as sigils, and the inclusion of others which other historians might regard as being merely abbreviations. For example, from the Greek collection recorded in BEKTEHLOT 1885 I have included both

and

which in my opinion arc sigils, even though derived from the the Greek terms

and

Such exclusions ana inclusions have been determined ultimately by my own personal opinions.

It goes without saying that I have not thought it necessary to insert sigils which have been preserved in erroneous form, it is unfortunately no rare thing for siqils, and indeed whole batches of sigils, to be printed in reverse from copperplate, or to be given upside-down by careless printers. For example, the second line of Divine Letters in AGRIPPA 1531 was printed upside-down in WHITEHEAD 1897, producing a series of magical formulae with which no ancient occultist was ever familiar. BARRETT 1801, an indefatigable and extremely careless recorder of occult lore, managed to get a line or so of his geomantic figures upside-down, and inevitably these have been recorded by certain later dubious 'historians', who have never bothered to examine primal sources, or are unaware of the graphic theory underlying the construction of such sigils.

I have made one or two important and necessary exceptions to this general rule. For example, I have recorded the mistakes made by HEYDON 1664 concerning certain of the geomantic spirit sigils, which he copied wrongly from AGRIPPA 1531 (see for example AMNIXITEL or SORATH), and in turn I have recorded the mistake of AGRIPPA 1531 in regard to HIRCUS.

Such inclusions, against the general rule, were required because these widely published mistakes have themselves been adopted as the correct forms as a result of the industry and ignorance of later copyists.

The few appendices commencing at page 314 have been included in order to present the general reader with a synoptical view of the development of the more frequently used sigils. Especially interesting is the development of the astrological sigils for the zodiacal signs and planets, which may be studied from the selection given from four mediaeval manuscripts in comparison with the 'modern' forms preserved by AGRIPPA 1531, and given an apparently accidental imprimatur by the printing press. Of antiquarian interest is the comparison which may be made between the alchemical sigils taken from WORLIDGE 1651 with the neo-alchemical forms presented by BERGMANN 1785.

Occultism being what it is - a personal, if not to say heretical, approach to life - I have taken fox granted that the redder will be either specialist enough, or interested enough, to make this dictionary his own by extending it. Towards this end, a number of blank sheets have been bound into the text, after the INDEX OF SIGILS, at page 4l0. I hope that the personal efforts of the reader will be such as to remedy the omissions and defects which the book doubtless promulgates. The very manner in which this text was constructed has determined that mistakes should occur. For technical reasons I was required to type out the text personally and then insert by hand the sigils which I had collected: it is inevitable that in such laborious transcribing of forms - in some cases, three or four times, between manuscript or book, and the final entry within this text - errors should have crept in. The trials and tedium of the index system - which in its very extent makes this Dictionary unique - must also have led to unobserved errors which will be far from unobservable to those who use the text frequently. If I may excuse such errors in advance, and perhaps deflect the darts of criticism, let me say that all the deficiencies are due merely to lack of scholarship, and in no way arise from Irick of love for the subjects. If this truth is held in mind, then my intentions will be misinterpreted only by what Crollius termed 'the wrong kind of people', from whom the ancients in any ease sought to hide the true meanings of their sigils, ne in pravorum notitiam devenirent. A more important truth is expressed in the words of Carlyle which BLAVATSKY 1888 chose to head her chapter on 'Symbolism and Ideographs' : A symbol is ever, to him who has eyes for it, some dimmer or clearer revelation of the God-like.

Raymond MARTIN-FABER