But what are these other symbols.  Dan Brown has already given us many hints in The Da Vinci Code and the Challenge Internet games.  Some of those symbols were answers, remember them?

The the layout of Washington D.C. is mirrored in the Heavens some say, much like the pyramids of Egypt are alinement with the stars above. 

 

The symbols are the Chi-Rho, the ANHK, VIRGO, and the Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool.  Dan Brown has already hinted at these symbols and he will have Langdon discover a lost codex of Leonardo Da Vinci which will probably be based upon the Key of Solomon the King.

There are so far-out speculations about the this 16th century(not actually written by King Solomon in fact) book of spells and incantations.  The problem is that the Keys of Solomons are not ancient at all.  And there are many versions of them in Hebrew, Greek, Italian, French and Latin.  No scholar worth his salt believes any of them are truly ancient works but rather a hodge-podge of collected works whose symbols and wording was changed by each author.

So if Dan Brown trys to say that Leonardo discovered an ancient parchment, he's telling tall tales, which is okay. It's FICTION!

First the CHI-RHO symbol.

Wayne Herschel believes the LOST SYMBOL is simply the cross found in the Orion Belt, visible by the ancients, found in only one specific version of a Solomon Key Talisman or Pentacle, and a clue to our origins. Hmmm. Only problem is the conjunction is July 4^th and Brown is releasing THE LOST SYMBOL on Sept. 15 three days before the 18^th, the date of George Washington’s inaugural parade.

 

Wayne Herschel claims to use the “real or original” Key of Solomon and cites this link to where you can see it on the Internet.  http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol.htm By scrolling toward the bottom of the page. What he fails to mention is that earlier this rendition of a the Holy Pentacles is explained as also being from most likely the 1600’s not some ancient origional Hebrew text at all.

 Herschel also refers to the French title of 

an eighteenth-century manuscript of Les vrais clavicules du roi Salomon, translated from the Hebrew (dubious at best since there is no Hebrew version found anywhere), which was sold in Paris in 1921. Again, like all the other Keys of Solomon it dates to only about the 16^th century.  It was studied by S. L. Mathers when he translated the Greater Key of Solomon the King but Mathers left out the section that names the demons cited by Herschel because he concluded they were a later addition to the text.

 

From Wikepedia: The clavicles of Solomon the King is the title of a manual of magic which was first published in 1825 in Paris. On y trouve les règles rituelles, ainsi que les périodes astrologiques favorables (jours, et heures, selon les influences planétaires qui leur sont attribuées) pour toute expérimentation magique. There are rules, rituals, and the favorable astrological periods (days, hours, according to planetary influences attributed to them) for magical experimentation.

Les auteurs prétendent qu'il s'agirait en fait du testament que le célèbre roi Salomon , qui selon les diverses légendes aurait été doté de pouvoirs surnaturels et d'une connaissance quasi-universelle ^{[réf. nécessaire]} , aurait légué à son fils Roboam. The authors argue that this will in fact the famous King Solomon, who according to various legends have been endowed with supernatural powers and a near-universal knowledge ^{[ref. Necessary]} would have bequeathed to his son Rehoboam . Ce testament aurait été conservé par des rabins qui lui aurait donné son nom actuel ^{[réf. nécessaire]} . This will have been retained by Rabins that would have given its present name ^{[ref. Necessary].}

On peut toutefois s'étonner de la présence dans le manuscrit des noms de St Pierre et de St Paul, ce qui rendrait totalement fausses ses prétendues origines. It may surprise the presence in the manuscript of the names of St Peter and St Paul, making his alleged totally false origins.

Okay, so what's the big deal. Well the truth is that none of the various Keys of Solomon can be dated back to the time of King Solomon period. Here's some more factual history about the grimoires.

Even another named the TRUE GRIMOIRE or Grimorium Verum was a later work  written in French and Italian.

 

Gollancz, 1914.

Facsimile published by Gollancz as Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh (Book of the Key of Solomon) (Oxford, 1914). The manuscript dates to around 1700. G. Scholem edited the text in 'Some Sources of Jewish-Arabic Demonology', in Journal of Jewish Studies, xvi (1965). It contains a large number of Greek (such as Sabaoth), Latin, and Italian elements. Also has Christian elements, such as the use of a cross put in holy water (fol. 37a, cited by Rohrbacher-Sticker in 'A Hebrew Manuscript of Clavicula Salomonis, Part II. in the British Library Journal, Vol. 21, 1995, pp. 132.) It is probably (as Scholem puts it) a late adaptation of a 'Latin (or rather Italian) Clavicula text of the renaissance period' (ibid p. 6.).

And the G. Scholem who edited this text is none other than the famous Hebrew scholar better known for his work on explaining the Kabbalah. So if he says it is not an ancient pentacle actually written by King Solomon we should take his word for it.

 

Further, Mr. Herschel’s theory states that the demons names or the daemons (listed in the Key of Solomon)are actually code for certain stars and constellations.

 

First of all, the Greater Key of Solomon doesn’t list the names of demons. It has tables of what are called correspondences to: Arch Angels, Planets, the Elements and Planetary Hours. No demons.

 

In fact, it’s another version known as the Lesser Key of Solomon that lists names of demons but it is also not ancient at all.

The Lesser Key of Solomon or Clavicula Salomonis (the Clavis Salomonis, or Key of Solomon is an earlier book on the subject), is an anonymous 17th century grimoire, and one of the most popular books of demonology. It has also long been widely known as the Lemegeton.

It appeared in the 17th century, but much was taken from texts of the 16th century, including the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, by Johann Weyer, and late-medieval grimoires. It is likely that books by Jewish kabbalists and Muslim mystics were also inspirations. Some of the material in the first section, concerning the summoning of demons, dates to the 14th century or earlier.

The book claims that it was originally written by King Solomon, although this is certainly incorrect. The titles of nobility (such as the French Marquis or Germanic Earl) assigned to the demons were unknown in his time, as were the prayers to Jesus and the Christian Trinity included in the text.

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.esotericarchives.com%2Fsolomon%2Fksol.htm

 

 

And besides, the diagrams of the demons are more typical of those found in other 14^th through 16^th century grimoires or books of so-called Black Magick.

Part one is called the ARS GOETIA  (Arts … Ancient Greek γοητεία (goēteia) means "charm, jugglery"^[1] from γόης "sorcerer, wizard"^[2]. Also The word may be ultimately derived from the verb γοάω "groan, bewail.)

 

Part Two is called Theurgia (Divine working) Goetia

 

Here are some of the sigils (magickal symbols and drawings) representing the demons.

 

 

 To make these grimoires more mysterious and authentic in origion, it was common practise to attribute them to some famous magi or adept like King Solomon, or in a few cases evern popes--like Honorus! Early attempts at hype and spin marketing were used by the authors of these secret tomes on magick.

 

I have nothing against Mr. Herschel at all. But the reader should know the truth behind the alleged but not ancient Hebrew texts he uses to make his point. It is a typical fiction writer's method of first coming up with a plot device or theory and then, finding whatever evidence you can to support the concept. But that's not what real historians do is it? I would hope that this time out the critics of Dan Brown will stop accusing him of bending history because he like myself is just a novelist not actually some Harvard Symbolist, a term that has no basis in fact itself!