Book Discussion Summa Sacre Magice of Stephen Skinners

[Blackbird]

I hope it's not too much of an ask, but I was wondering if someone who had the book would mind summarizing the names and virtues of the winds?

 

[Adelina]

There are 40 Winds, which are generally used for main Conjurations. They are:

Saathan, Maymona, Zeab, Abnalaamar, Amnalasfar, Abnazar, Abnalazafar, Abnalazar, Roya, Behemoth, Mextyhura, Altybany, Alphlas, Zobha, Drahas, Palas, Sambas, Hebethel, Amocab, Oylol, Mylalu, Abucaba, Cambores, Trachatat, Nassar, Naassah, Hatrahurbyabylis, Yaconablabur, Carmeal, Junyal, Proathofas, Haryth, Yesse, Ryon, Nesaph, Naadop, Baxatau, Chahatus, Caudones, Yarabal.

These 40 Winds are those of all parts of the world. This topic is actually quite huge, and there are much more details which are not seen in the book of Berengarius Ganellus. As you can see from the names, they include some peculiar ones, which are considered as High Ranking Demons by others.

 

[Blackbird]

There are 40 Winds, which are generally used for main Conjurations. They are:

Saathan, Maymona, Zeab, Abnalaamar, Amnalasfar, Abnazar, Abnalazafar, Abnalazar, Roya, Behemoth, Mextyhura, Altybany, Alphlas, Zobha, Drahas, Palas, Sambas, Hebethel, Amocab, Oylol, Mylalu, Abucaba, Cambores, Trachatat, Nassar, Naassah, Hatrahurbyabylis, Yaconablabur, Carmeal, Junyal, Proathofas, Haryth, Yesse, Ryon, Nesaph, Naadop, Baxatau, Chahatus, Caudones, Yarabal.

These 40 Winds are those of all parts of the world. This topic is actually quite huge, and there are much more details which are not seen in the book of Berengarius Ganellus. As you can see from the names, they include some peculiar ones, which are considered as High Ranking Demons by others.

Thanks for the swift response! I can't quite parse the BG's abbreviated Latin so I really appreciate it!
And yeah, I figured these names liked to wear a lot of different hats. Sometimes they're jinn, sometimes angels, demons, winds, princes etc.
I also completely misheard how many winds there were. I thought there were 14. (Heard about SSM through Glitch Bottles & What Magic Is This podcasts)

 

[Toz_]

Can someone explain what knowledge in this book that makes invocation more effective? What exactly would change in a invocation if we for example use SSM as support book to Goetia Dr Rudd?

 

[Abromoskot]

Can someone explain what knowledge in this book that makes invocation more effective? What exactly would change in a invocation if we for example use SSM as support book to Goetia Dr Rudd?

Regarding this, Skinner makes the argument the secret names of the spirits for each of the times and astrological conditions give a boost to it, basically there is a secret name for each day, hour, moon phase and more.
This goes back to the PGM tradition of having this kind of tables of names for the spirits of each time, there is a similar thing in the Heptameron, where each time has some kings, princes etc to call.

Post automatically merged: Nov 12, 2025

I hope it's not too much of an ask, but I was wondering if someone who had the book would mind summarizing the names and virtues of the winds?

Regarding to this I would like to add that Rankine has in his latest book "Claves Spirituum" mentioned the usage of wind spirits during the conjuration.

Basically he takes some info from SSM (even parts not yet published) and adds it before the main call to the spirit. He has written that this greatly enhances the ability of the spirit to come.

So we could say that SSM has already started to make a change in the modern grimoire landscape.

Thanks for the swift response! I can't quite parse the BG's abbreviated Latin so I really appreciate it!
And yeah, I figured these names liked to wear a lot of different hats. Sometimes they're jinn, sometimes angels, demons, winds, princes etc.
I also completely misheard how many winds there were. I thought there were 14. (Heard about SSM through Glitch Bottles & What Magic Is This podcasts)

There is a first section where you call a lesser number (around 6 per direction) then there is a longer section where you command them with 40 or so names of powers. The SSM explains that you go around the circle one way or another depending on your system of writing (arabic or latin for example).

 

[Angelkesfarl]

I believe that Naṣṣār "Nassar"(one of the famous daemons in the Middle East, pronounced locally as Nāṣūr) is said to be one of the greatest daemons. He has invocations among us called Shibshabāt or Shirwiṭāt/Zayf work used for intercourse, meaning he is one of the daemons of sexual sorcery."

"I had an adventure with him in the past; it was very wonderful. However, he is one of the '26-year daemons': he grants you everything you desire for 26 years, and then you are obligated to die in the most horrific way possible. I know a sorcerer who died in 1996 after his daughter burned on her wedding night as punishment for him not killing himself. He subsequently committed suicide."

"For this reason, I warn you: before you enter the dark rooms to summon daemons, be careful. If they attend, will you be able to deter them, or will you sign a covenant that will not be good for you?"

 

[cormundum]

The translation really isn't great. It's very awkward. Doesn't really learn towards dynamic or vernacular style translations, kinda neither here nor there. I wish someone else would do a translation of it with the original Latin in a critical edition.

 

[Frater R.P.G.]

Alan Thorgood in a comment on Dan Harm's review of the book suggested that there's evidence that they didn't translate from Latin, but rather from an earlier Russian translation (without crediting it). Apparently various spelling peculiarities like capitalisation of certain words are quite consistent with that Russian edition. So... I guess that's why so many people say the translation is awkward.

 

[Mercurious Magus]

Can someone explain what knowledge in this book that makes invocation more effective? What exactly would change in an invocation if we for example use SSM as support book to Goetia Dr Rudd?

The range of modalities used to compel spirits are what make it more effective - namely words of power, spiritual hierarchies and the full techniques used by Solomonic practitioners before methods were truncated by Heptameron, Goetia and other post-medieval grimoires which “dismissed the trifles” (to quote Lucidarium). Examples of enhancing Goetic practice could include the Honorii method of excitation (or stimulating spirits while circumambulating), invoking spirit winds, invoking all the thrones at once, invoking the “Overlords” ie Chief Legions of Tartarus (not your just your typical LBS or cardinal kings, but demons like Achezyloyum, “the greatest of the devils”), using a spirit table intended for home use etc. The Goetia of Dr. Rudd (ie Lemegeton) was essentially a simplified reboot of the SSM (likely originally compiled by Trithemius or a disciple who had access or knowledge of the SSM). The Goetia’s Officiorum and conjurations are clearly taken from the SSM (corrupted and filtered over time). Almandals are present in both, summoning spirits of the altitudes or constellations, summoning aerial spirits (albeit Trithemius’ Steganographic spirits are used in Theurgia Goetia) prayers from the Ars Notoria are present in both etc etc. The “Lesser Key” was clearly an attempt to make a compendium of magic that reflected (maybe “ripoff” or “rival” would be better terms) Ganelli’s masterpiece. It certainly has far more in common with the SSM than the “Greater Key”

Post automatically merged: Jan 30, 2026

Alan Thorgood in a comment on Dan Harm's review of the book suggested that there's evidence that they didn't translate from Latin, but rather from an earlier Russian translation (without crediting it). Apparently various spelling peculiarities like capitalisation of certain words are quite consistent with that Russian edition. So... I guess that's why so many people say the translation is awkward.

That’s absolutely fascinating, I had no idea a Russian transcription/translation existed, let alone from seven years ago, or that Skinner used illustrations from it (at least). Hell, I would have gotten my hands on that when it was published. Crazy

 

[Adelina]

Alan Thorgood in a comment on Dan Harm's review of the book suggested that there's evidence that they didn't translate from Latin, but rather from an earlier Russian translation (without crediting it). Apparently various spelling peculiarities like capitalisation of certain words are quite consistent with that Russian edition. So... I guess that's why so many people say the translation is awkward.

Actually this might be not the case. Latin handwriting in this manuscript is very hard to understand, so I was comparing translations side by side, mostly to compare Words of Power. Words of Power are all caps in Russian version, and so far I didn't notice any mistakes in transcription (but they might be there). English version is slightly different case, sadly there were some mistakes. Though it might be that English translators added their own mistakes while translating from Russian and not from original.

And neither version provides original Latin text. That's very sad, because many conjurations simply can't be used in their translated form, they must be used in their original language.

Edit: Compared texts again just now... True... English translation is based on Russian one, illustrations are taken directly from Russian version. And bunch of mistakes specific only to English translation is added...

Post automatically merged: Jan 30, 2026

Actually there is more than spelling mistakes in English Version. Page 203 says, "Make therefore one circle of skin on black or wild wood, designed for this purpose". Actually it should says "Make therefore one circle skin of black or wild goat, prepared for this purpose".

This is huge mistake, there might be more such huge mistakes which makes this translation not useful at all.

 

[cormundum]

Alan Thorgood in a comment on Dan Harm's review of the book suggested that there's evidence that they didn't translate from Latin, but rather from an earlier Russian translation (without crediting it). Apparently various spelling peculiarities like capitalisation of certain words are quite consistent with that Russian edition. So... I guess that's why so many people say the translation is awkward.

That explains a lot of the clumsiness in the translation, AND the lack of Latin... Happy I managed to find it from a wholesaler instead of paying full price. Hopefully Joseph Peterson will put together his own at some point that does proper honor to the grimoire.

Post automatically merged: Jan 30, 2026

Edit: Compared texts again just now... True... English translation is based on Russian one, illustrations are taken directly from Russian version. And bunch of mistakes specific only to English translation is added...

Post automatically merged: Jan 30, 2026

Actually there is more than spelling mistakes in English Version. Page 203 says, "Make therefore one circle of skin on black or wild wood, designed for this purpose". Actually it should says "Make therefore one circle skin of black or wild goat, prepared for this purpose".

This is huge mistake, there might be more such huge mistakes which makes this translation not useful at all.

That's heinous. Somebody who has the linguistic capabilities should take Skinner and Golden Hoard to task for this. I might even sell my copy. Who needs a screwed up, useless grimoire lying around?

 

[juanitos]

If translated from Russian..why Skinner never mentioned about that in his youtube video where he said it was translated from the original Latin manuscript..??

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Frater R.P.G.]

That explains a lot of the clumsiness in the translation, AND the lack of Latin... Happy I managed to find it from a wholesaler instead of paying full price. Hopefully Joseph Peterson will put together his own at some point that does proper honor to the grimoire.

Tbf they did apparently consult the Latin at least somewhat, it's not entirely based on the Russian edition, but it's clear that they at least to some degree worked off of that.

If translated from Russian..why Skinner never mentioned about that in his youtube video where he said it was translated from the original Latin manuscript..??

See above. It's very sketchy, so I hope we get an answer from them. That said, Skinner's Latin translations could be better based on my experience with his edition of John Dee's diaries, so I'm not sure if it would be that much better had they translated it directly from Latin.