u/UrsusofMichigan

Mantis. A religious specialist usually translated as "seer." Mantis, derived from _mania_, someone thought to be in an inspired state.

Seers interpreted signs of the gods, usually through some divinatory scheme, but sometimes through possession by a deity. To the extent that physical ailments were thought to have supernatural causes (and thus supernatural solutions), they were also healers. They also knew how and when to perform sacrifices to the gods (since much divination occured from examining the entrails of sacrificed animals).

They were migratory to the extent they seemed to wander from polis to polis in the Hellenic world looking for employment; they especially targeted the wealthy, much to Plato's ire.

There was an element of charisma involved as they needed to appear credible. The most prestigious seers came from a familial lineage. Successful seers could be employed directly by a polis or even attached to generals in time of war.

Seers differ from a magician (magos) because seers interpret signs from divinity whereas the magician is thought to influence divinity. A seer performs some of the same functions as a priest, but a priest is attached to a specific cult site whereas seers were often migratory (as discussed above).

Most seers were associated with Apollo but also occasionally Dionysus.

********

Ok. A very common question in Hellenic forums is: do we still need priests, and if so what does that look like in the modern world? I think a better question to ask is: do we need seers, and if so what does that look like in the modern world?

Most esoterically inclined people develop a basic facility with divination. But some people are particularly good at it. And deity possession is a skill all its own.

For those of you who weren't functioning adults in the 2000s, there were some prominent Hellenic reconstructionists who claimed to be seers of Apollon or Dionysus. I actually got a reading from one which turned out to be totally bogus. And you got the sense some of these people were a little more interested in status than service.

All of that is to say there is a danger in giving too much credence to every self-proclaimed seer who wants to sell their services. Plato's criticisms are not totally unfounded.

And yet ... I think most of us here would agree that, leaving out the charlatans, there are people out there who have the capacity to be legitimate seers.

What are your thoughts? Do seers have a place? And how does one vet them?

The only known pictorial depiction of the Gallic god Sucellus has been discovered in a Gallo-Roman sanctuary near Tournus, Burgundy. The sanctuary was in continuous use from the late Iron Age until the 4th century.

Only image of Gallo-Roman god found in Burgundy sanctuary – The History Blog https://share.google/ZKxIAF86pykpFnAwm

Ancient Magic: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Supernatural in Greece and Rome by Philip Matyszak

Matyszak is a British academic who has degrees from University of London and Oxford. He specializes in Roman history. His first career was as a journalist.

I have read a number of works from Matyszak on Greco-Roman history which I generally recommend. While some of these are your traditional academic-derived history books, many more are less traditional. Many are written more as a reader-friendly overview of the subject, utilizing Matyszak’s conversational skills as a journalist.

Ancient Magic: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Supernatural in Greece and Rome is among the latter. It is certainly well researched as one would expect of an Oxford scholar. However, its aim is to give someone a congenial introduction, filled with wit and charm, and supplemented with choice photographs and illustrations. This is the perfect introduction book to those who are brand new to the subject, although a basic background in Greco-Roman polytheism would still immensely help the reader.

Matyszak surveys several fields: necromancy and ghosts, general magical practice and famous magicians, love spells and curses, magical creatures, magical defense, and seership. These sections are just long enough to give the reader a taste of the subject. The primary sources are quoted to good effect, and there are many quality reproductions of ancient art and artefacts.

Whatever Matyszak’s personal religious beliefs (I believe he was raised in a Jewish family), it is obvious he has immense respect for the subject of pagan magic, and finds it all cheerfully amusing and enthralling. He adopts just the right tone of skepticism. For instance, a lot of the poisons in the ancient world had more to do with chemistry than the supernatural, a point he makes without too much patronizing.

The very well -read pagan or occultist may not find anything new here, but it can serve as a delightful and entertaining refresher course. It's real strength is a witty yet erudite introduction to the subject for the neophyte.

Just trying to get a pulse on this community. Thanks.

View Poll

What is magic in the Greco-Roman sense of the word? Magic in general is notoriously hard to define. Perhaps it is best to compare and contrast magic to normative Greco-Roman pagan religion(s).

Normative religion is about propitiating divine forces to incur their favor.  Typically it involves purification, prayer, and offering/sacrifice. Magic, too, typically involves purification, prayer, and offerings/sacrifice, though the exact mechanics of these may differ substantially from normative religion. The magician may have very involved purificatory rites; they may have extraordinary prayers laced with strange words and strange theological assumptions; and the offerings may be of a differing quality or quantity than normative religion. And if normative religion is about securing the good will of the gods on behalf of the community, magic was often about securing very specific gains or knowledge to the individual practitioner (or to the practitioner’s client if the magician had been hired for the activity). 

Religion, at the public level, was typically practiced in a temple or sanctuary; the family practiced religion before a home shrine or a domestic courtyard. Magicians often practiced magic alone, and they could do it anywhere; from their rooftops, in deserts, in thick woods or in caves and tombs. Related to this, certain techniques such as trance and ecstasy were trusted only within the confines of temples and sanctuaries when supervised by priests of the public religion; in individuals operating on their own, they were considered suspicious. 

Finally there is a comparison to be made  between magic and the Mysteries.  Both involved initiations and secrets, and often dramatic encounters with gods. Both operated on a type of knowledge not held in common by normative society which was thought to bring the knower closer to the divine. The magician, though, did not have to be initiated at Eleusius, they did not have to belong to a Dionysian or Isiac or Mithraic cell; they could perform a ritual in the desert or a rooftop by themselves and attain a paramount closeness to divinity. 

It has been said the magician operated somewhat like a law onto themself, operating in parallel with normative religion, but not inside of normative religion - and more to the point, not constrained by normative religion and the public officials who controlled it.  The magician was an individual performing exotic rites for immediate (and often extraordinary) advantages for themself or their client. 

And perhaps this is why magic and the magician were treated with suspicion. 

Greece and Rome had laws curtailing the effects of magic. The Romans in particular cracked down on magic-users, having invented the witch hunt centuries before the Medieval Christians did.  The public bodies were of course concerned with what they considered harm to individuals and disruption to society. But to this there was usually a biased social element, as laws were made by elite males and crackdowns happened most especially against those perceived as foreign, women, and lower class. 

But if the powers that be in certain times and places feared magic, many others simply mocked it. There was a class of itinerant magicians in Ancient Greece who made a point to sell their services, especially to the rich. (These itinerant magicians were often seen, not surprisingly, as foreign, feminine, and low class). The Athenian literati mocked them, treating them as charlatans and buffoons. No doubt, some were, for in any age mysticism will employ its fair share of charlatans, same as with any other field of society. The question is, does one throw out the baby with the bathwater? 

Then there is the legacy of Plato.  Plato frowned on magic. In his ideal state dreamed of in The Republic, he even went so far as to warrant death to certain types of practitioners. Plato is entitled to his views, as are his followers today. But Plato was an aristocrat with a certain social bias. In other words, he was an elite male looking down on a class of people who were - to again use the buzzwords - seen as foreign, feminine, and low-class.  It has also been remarked that some of the criticisms that Plato directed at itinerant magicians were criticisms that Athenians directed at Plato’s beloved mentor, Socrates. The philosophical schools were actually competitors in some sense with itinerant magicians for the attention of the wealthy, and that puts the jibes of the former against the latter in a certain context. 

Thus, magic was feared at times by the rulers, mocked at times by the literati, and condemned usually by the philosopher.  

And yet, people did it. Particularly those on the bottom of society who had nothing to lose. For example, a slave, and in some cases a woman’s, only recourse for justice might be a curse tablet directed to the underworld gods. Cursing people is wrong, you say? But what if there was no other social avenue for someone to seek redress for grievances?

Ronald Hutton has likened magic in the ancient world to modern narcotics; it had an odious quality in polite society. Yet large swarths of people - including some in polite society - did it. And everyone on the street who needed it knew where to go to get it.  

There is value in studying magic. It provides an interesting compliment and contrast to normative classical paganism.  It often reveals a voice in classical society of certain groups who were otherwise voiceless.  And in this modern age when we have no priests or temples or Mystery sects, where we are often surrounded by an overculture that doesn’t support us or our religious inclinations, it offers the pagan individual another path to the gods.

Those who actually believe in the efficacy of magic, of course, will add a further point: we should study magic because it might actually work.

Disclaimer: I messaged mods a while ago to ask for permission for this post: I never got a response. The primary mod hasn't been active for a month at least. The secondary mod hasn't been active on Reddit for over a year.

I personally don't consider this spam as it's related to Roman paganism. 🤷 So here goes:

I and two other people co-moderate a subreddit for "esoterica," basically a catch-all for magic, mysticism and the Mysteries.

We review the primary sources and scholarship thereof to get a good grounding. Then we're not above adapting and innovating for modern use, but we're very honest about what we're doing in that regard.

This place is basically designed as a think-tank for people with an interest in classical mysticism and who want to have discussions without the usual "Witchtok" nonsense out there.

Thanks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Greco\_Roman\_esoterica/s/13aS5pacVJ

Terms:

• Nekuomanteion = Oracle of the Dead
• psuchomanteia, “rites for divination from souls,”
• Psuchagōgos = evocator of souls = those who helped restless ghosts by locating their body and then consulted them on why they’re restless. Also an epithet of Hermes. Itinerant diviners and magicians and were prominent in pythagorean circles in southern italy. Deemed as charlatans by Plato. 
• Goetes = sorcerers whose powers are connected to the dead. Possibly originally “ shamanic” in nature.  Oriignally their power was thought to derive from evocation of spirits
• “Shamans” = send their souls outside of themselves, they perform these rites in underground chambers of wisdom, and have an ability to prophecy.  Linked to the Pythagorean tradition.

 

First literary reference  = The Odyssey. We can trace the literature from classical Greece to the fall of Rome.  However, the only  direct “documentary” evidence for necromancy is the PGM and is influenced by the Egyptian understandings. 

Necromancers were typically male Greeks, but the literati placed their origins in Egypt and Near East. Pythagoras reputedly learned mysticism in Egypt and Babylon. The Persian magi are associated with necromancy. In literature, women become associated with the art and are usually portrayed as wicked or evil.  Necromancy was always considered odd, and the Platonists in particular condemned it. Romans in particular feared necromancy and, not by coincidence, most of the depraved emperors were said to use it.

Necromancy is similar to practices Greeks used to placate the dead in their tombs.  Ghosts hovered around their tombs.  Tombs of course were used for curse tablets. Pythagoreans particularly connected with tomb necromancy.  Not greatly dissimilar from katabasis (descent into the underworld as used in the Mysteries) as the initiate is confronted with ghosts and terrors. 

Battlefields with their recently dead are also a place for necromancy. Can also perform necromancy in dark woods and marshes (naturally dark places). Oracles of the dead were also located in caves or lakeside.  Curse tablets were often deposited here as well. 

Hades, Persephone, Hermes and Hecate-Trivia were associated with necromancy. The Pythagorean “shamans” were associated with Apollon. However, in art, at least one of these “shamans” has a thyrsus and thus is linked to Dionysus. The PGM because of its Egyptian influence has quite a few deities associated, including sun and moon. 

The basic rite of evocation is not, in and of itself, magical and closely resembles the rites of the dead performed at tombs.  One constructs a pit and a fire: the pit is for blood and wine libations for the spirits of the dead, the fire is for a holocaust offering for the deities of the underworld.  What makes it magical are extra steps and understandings 

• Purification: several ways for the necromancer to achieve purity, which becomes a rite in itself and sometimes involve sacrifice of animals
• Timing: usually done at night, although could be performed in naturally dark places like thick woods and caves. Darkness is what was essential. Often done at night off the full moon. 
• Circumambulation: could be practiced around the pit and fire. 
• Offerings: the aforementioned pit and fire.  Blood and wine were libations; black sheep were usually the animal offerings. 
• Utterances, chants, prayers, magic words. 
• Stones and dolls. Pliny makes mention of a “holding stone” used to hold onto ghosts once summoned.  Probably the closest thing in today's terms would be a crystal?  The use of dolls and poppets were also known.
• Dress:  dress in black
• Incubation: it is thought that after all these steps were performed, the necromancer would go asleep (or trance or lucid dreaming?).  Sleep, dreams, death, and night are all connected; the soul is detached from its body. The ghost would speak to the necromancer in their dreams.

Divination: ghosts were asked to divine through lamps and bowls.  Boys were used as mediums for it was thought their innocent souls were better for such things. This gave rise to the idea that boys were sacrificed in such rites. 

The ghosts most likely to be evoked were those that had died before their time, either violently or otherwise. These ghosts would have been confused or angry and wanting to talk to someone.  Also, if they were not buried properly, they would want to reach out for someone to find their bodies and bury them; this was actually one of the chief duties of the necromancer. 

Why consult ghosts?  Ghosts see the past clearly (they were thought to chat with each other so all the ghosts have knowledge of what collectively happened through humanity). A ghost attached to a tomb sees everything that happens around its tomb.  And Pythagoras and Platonists believe a soul detached from its body and earthly concerns has a special wisdom.  For all this, consulting ghosts about the future is not necessarily the main point; they are more likely to know the past and present. 

Keep in mind however the prevailing afterlife view was that once the shades of the departed reached Hades, they drank the waters of Forgetfulness. So how did they remember their past lives?  That goes back to the previous discussion the ghosts most likely to be consulted were those that had died untimely and/or not been properly buried.  Those ghosts would not yet have reached the underworld. 

Finally, the necromancer is someone who inveigles the line between life and death.  The ghosts are partially animated to life by the evocation and particularly by drinking the blood offering; the necromancer himself “dies” in some sense by descending into darkness and especially by practicing incubation, for dreams are a boundary between the waking world and the world of the dead.  

Edit: heavily based on _Greek and Roman Necromancy_ by Daniel Ogden

I asked a similar question in r/Hellenismus, so forgive me if you have seen this.

There are broadly at least three areas of religion that are typically studied in Hellenic Reconstructionism: the household religion; the polis festivals; and then the private associations, the leading example of which are the mysteries. (And Theurgy is a seperate concern which I'm not going to discuss now).

I don't think the household religion or the polis festivals require much comment.

The Mysteries of course are bereft of surviving information as much of what happened was concealed. The idea of _reconstructing_ the mysteries is problematic given the dearth of knowledge. Nonetheless we have an idea, if nothing else, about what happened, if we care to _reimagine_ the Mysteries.

Back in the 2000s there was a huge debate about how to reimagine the Mysteries. A bunch of Hellenists from ceremonial magick backgrounds were inserting Thelema into the mix, which caused some controversy. I'm not sure what ultimately happened to their efforts, but I have not heard anything about them, so I assume the project died or is a secretive affair confined to a few dozen people.

Speaking to this community, what are your thoughts about reimagining the Mysteries? How would we go about it? What is a completely out of bounds as source material in your eyes?

Tracing Hecate from early appearance to Chaldean oracles.

Written in the 90s. A little outdated - among other things places the origin of Hecate in Thrace rather than Caria, the latter being more generally accepted, I believe. But a free resource, and an interesting discussion nonetheless.

The Goddess Hekate.pdf https://share.google/p5CUHM6ObOHpsAaIi

My interests in Orphism have led to a broader concern for chthonic cults and necromancy.

I just bought this book. Hopefully will find some time to read it soon. Once read, I will try to do a mini book review for the community.

What are you reading now? What are your research projects? Let us know in the comments.

Necromancy

I started the vague outline of a wiki. Please recommend credible books and videos and we can update the wiki as we have time. Thanks.