Sloane 3825 in the modern Lemegeton edition
Joseph H. Peterson bases much of his Lemegeton edition on Sloane MS 3825. His introduction gives it the title Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis and compares readings in the Goetia and later books with other manuscripts and earlier printed sources. That association has made the shelfmark prominent in discussions of the Lesser Key. The edition supplies folio markers and a readable transcription, but those are Peterson’s presentation of the material. Features of the bound manuscript, including corrections, omissions, and the order of neighboring texts, remain separate evidence about the object.
Three ritual systems share the codex
The catalogue’s folio divisions describe three substantial units: Janua magicae reserata, a short text on Egyptian magic, and a French Clavicle of Solomon. Their juxtaposition does not erase their different ritual grammars. The Janua material organizes access through named spiritual hierarchies and ceremonial tables; the Clavicle tradition builds operations around prayers, tools, planetary timing, and pentacles; the Egyptian section forms a brief bridge between them without turning the whole codex into an Egyptian work. The sharp breaks at folios 96 and 100 matter because they reveal a compiler joining systems rather than an author unfolding one argument. A reader who labels the entire object “Lemegeton” loses precisely the evidence that makes the codex interesting.
Worked comparison: Janua and Clavicle distribute authority differently
The Janua and Clavicle materials offer different answers to the question of ritual authority. In a Janua-style hierarchy, authority is mapped through ordered names, ranks, and tables: the operator locates a spirit within an articulated celestial administration. In a Clavicle procedure, authority accumulates through preparation; fasting or prayer, the consecration of implements, the correct hour, and the divine names written around a figure. One system foregrounds a chain of beings; the other foregrounds the operator’s disciplined construction of a licensed ritual space. Binding the texts together lets a reader move between those models, but it does not make their techniques interchangeable.
The catalogue conflict points to a structural question
The disagreement between a Lemegeton identification and the present folio summary is more than a problem of labels. It asks whether a modern editor encountered material now described under another title, relied on a different cataloguing state, or grouped related ceremonial texts more broadly than the library does. The internal break after Janua magicae reserata and the later French Clavicle offer testable points: a five-part Lesser Key should display a different macrostructure from these three units. Until the physical sequence is reconciled with the editorial description, individual readings attributed to “Sloane 3825” need to be understood as claims about a specific textual layer, not automatic descriptions of every folio in the bound volume.
Language changes at the same boundary as genre
The catalogue records English and French material, and the French Clavicle begins at a new folio block. That alignment means translation and genre cannot be analyzed separately. A French technical term may reflect a different source family rather than one English copyist choosing a synonym, while the shift in prayers and implements may belong to the Clavicle tradition rather than to language alone. The codex therefore warns against building a single glossary across all its contents. Names that look similar can perform different jobs in a hierarchical table, a short Egyptian note, and a Solomonic prayer. Local context determines whether a verbal resemblance marks continuity or coincidence.
The current library description differs
The British Library’s current public catalogue page for Sloane MS 3825 describes folios 3–96 as Janua magicae reserata, folios 96v–99v as Egyptian magic, and folios 100–179 as a French Clavicle of Solomon. It does not identify a Lemegeton in that summary. The library also places 1740 in a date field apparently linked to the manuscript’s custodial history; that should not be read as the creation date of every work inside. These metadata do not themselves disprove Peterson’s inspected transcription, but they make the identity of the witness an unresolved issue for an online visitor.
What remains unresolved
Peterson’s Lemegeton identification and the British Library’s present contents summary point to different descriptions of Sloane MS 3825. The catalogue lists Janua magicae reserata, Egyptian magic, and a French Clavicle across its folios, without naming a Lemegeton in that summary. Those descriptions cannot be reconciled from the two public summaries alone. The 1740 date in the library record also appears connected to the collection’s history rather than the writing of each work. Sloane 3825 remains an important cited witness, but the identity of the material Peterson used alongside the library’s current folio descriptions is an unresolved issue.