Can you Do Grimoire Magic For Free?

A lot of people – magicians and non-magicians alike – have noted that you need money to do grimoire magic. I’ve strolled through a magic shop with my non-magician buddy and he’s been impressed by how costly magic is.

 

It can definitely seem like a barrier to those approaching it. Not only does it feel like there are a ton of books to read, things to learn, and tools to make and buy…

 

…but the books and the tools are expensive.

 

Especially when folks insist that you need proper gold implements, custom parchment from a sacrificed virgin goat, and sticks cut in a single stroke on a certain hour on a certain day with the moon in the right phase and the stick not having grown more than a year.

 

Seems daunting, and if you want to buy the parts, it’s expensive.

 

There is also always someone willing to sell it to you. Those folks willing to sell it to you will also tell you that you can only get the success they have if you exactly follow all the steps and exactly have perfectly created tools. They might even say that folks doing it other ways are, ironically, just trying to sell you something…the idea that anyone can do this.

 

The reality is the textual history, and what survives of material evidence shows pretty clearly that people did things with a lot of variance and alternatives historically. People innovated. People used simple methods to call on spirits and had the spirits teach them more personalized magical work. With the amount of treasure finding magic out there, magicians who had nice stuff may have even did simpler cheaper magic to get money to get that nice stuff.

 

You can go the purist route, or not. Either way, if you’re looking to get started and you’re pressed for cash you can still begin working within the grimoire tradition without spending money. You can begin contacting spirits, building relationships, obtaining means to contact them outside of ritual to accomplish magical goals. You can even taking the Jupiterian prosperity gospel of magic approach – use magic to get your financial and material life in order so you can focus on your magical life.  

 

So how do we go about this?

 

Well, the first thing to remember is that the grimoire tradition mostly exists in a medieval and Renaissance Catholic context…later on in a sometimes Catholic sometimes Protestant context. In that worldview, natural permissible magic existed alongside the more legally restricted magics often recorded in the grimoires.

 

Angels, and some other spirits, could be contacted without circles, without seals, and without complex rituals. Some of these you could encounter just through prayer and appeal to God, some you could call upon by going to places they resided, or gathering natural items during the right times. In terms of prayer to God, some of the simpler methods presented in books of magic pretty much boil down to that approach.

 

There are a ton of resources you can read for free online. Many of the ones that you should be checking out are available at Joseph H. Peterson’s excellent site, www.esotericarchives.com. Once you’ve conjured some money by working with less expensive methods and free online copies of grimoires…spend some of it on his excellent print editions.

 

So, where do we get started in the free approach to the grimoire tradition?

 

Trithemius's Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals can be used with minimal equipment and is free to read online. You can get it at JHP’s site, or my site. There will be some additional resources for using it on my site also. In my blog, I’ve talked about that approach to working with angels and presented an alternative version of that kind of crystallomantic conjuration from Scot’s Discouerie of Witchcraft.

 

The main thing you’ll need is the crystal sphere. Other elements can be helpful, but God can send an angel to speak to you in a crystal ball, or even a bowl of water if he so choses. Prepare yourself, purify yourself, truly devote yourself, and you can get started…quite literally on a wing and a prayer.

 

You might look at that and say, “is this really grimoire magic?” If you look at handbooks that collected magic people actually did, or look at surviving accounts of magical practice, this definitely fits in. We can look at a grimoire example that confirms that though…

 

The Arbatel is perhaps the simplest approach and can provide insight into other angel magic than just work with the Olympic spirits. It’s also free to read online.

 

In the Arbatel, the magician is given a series of Aphorisms to study, mostly about how to lead a good life. A section of those Aphorisms provide seals, names and descriptions for a group of angels called the Olympic spirits. There is a prayer provided to call upon the spirit you desire. There is an additional prayer that is useful to go with it. That’s about all you need. Several people have even encountered the Olympic spirits and asked about using more tools or materials and they generally don’t seem super interested in that. With them you can keep it simple…and keeping it simple keeps it in line with the text’s instructions.

 

The Arbatel provides us with a grimoire example of working with angels with just a name, a sign, and a prayer. You can easily use that approach with other angels. The Olympic spirits also provide familiars, so you can use this approach and still work one of the important components of grimoire magic. A grimoire magician does not always use complicated grimoire rituals to conjure spirits. Spirits with whom the magician has a relationship should provide means to easily call upon them to help the magician with magical tasks. If that spirit provides a familiar, the familiar should – more or less – remain with the magician and aid the magician and teach him additional magic.  

 

This kind of work with angels will be easier if you’ve been cultivating a relationship with the angels, working on purity, and engaging in devotional prayer.

 

The seven penitential psalms could work as a daily prayer and meditation practice to help build the devotional element of your work and bring you more into a place for the angels to be provided for you.

 

The Seven Orisons from the Enchiridion of Pope Leo provide magical prayers which the magician could pray daily at sunrise, or nightly before bed in order to build on that devotional practice. You can read those prayers for free here.

 

While looking at sets of seven daily prayers, we shouldn’t slouch on the ones from the Heptameron. The Heptameron of Pietro D’Abano has a prayer for each day of the week which conjures the angels. Several magical sources encourage the magician to use these prayers or prayers like them as a daily practice. On any day where he intends to do magic, the magician should recite the appropriate prayer in the first hour (at sunrise) of the day. It’s advisable for the magician to make this a regular practice even on days where he isn’t doing other magical work. Doing this can help keep the magician’s focus on angelic work and bring the angels into the magician’s orbit.

 

For one last example of a daily devotional prayer, Reginald Scot provides a conjuration through which God binds spirits to obey the magician. I’ve presented the prayer in one of my books, but you can also read it for free in my blog here.

 

We talked about purity. Obviously, living a solid good life is a big part of that. Ritually speaking, fasting, bathing, anointing, things like that help prepare the magician. Attending religious services is an option too. If you want something simple, ritually bathing and praying the psalms is a good start. Several grimoire provide psalms for this purpose. Joseph Peterson has provided a list of purposes assigned to psalms in the grimoires. You can find psalms for your cleansing bath, psalms to consecrate your candles, psalms for putting on special ritual clothes, and for a host of other purposes. You can peruse thathere and select psalms for your various needs.

 

As you save a bit of money, or get some from calling on angels to aid you, you can start acquiring tools and exploring more deeply through the grimoires. You can approach them in a purist approach or an idiosyncratic approach.

 

The Heptameron is one of the simplest ones. You can use it for angels, for aerial spirits, and also for demons. If you want an approach with few tools that builds a lifetime of practice, there is the Abramelin. It will involve a lot of time and devotion but it doesn’t need a lot of tools and will give you access to spirits and magic that don’t need a lot of tools. The French version adds a lot of things…things the system seems intended to avoid…and so it will involve more tools, but the German version keeps it simple. You’ll need a few things but not a ton. It’s also the one book we’re mentioning that you’d need to buy. You don’t really need classes or instruction or other books to learn how to do it, just trust your guardian angel to guide you.

 

So, there you have it. I’m not telling you to buy my books or anyone else’s books or take my classes or anyone else’s. You can learn and do grimoire magic with no cost if you really put your mind to it. There are some great books and some great classes out there too which can help you…but don’t think that’s the only way to get started. Once you get started, you can always jump deeper and explore those options…but don’t let the cost of books, classes, and tools keep you away if you feel this is what you should really be doing. Don’t let apparent complexities keep you on the bench either. Jump in. Doing is learning.

 

Like most of my posts, stuff I offer will be linked at the end. Those are standard links, they aren’t an answer to “how can I do this if I can’t afford much.” The actual content of the blog post answers that question.

Would you like to Follow us for Updates or Support our Work?

If you enjoyed this please like, follow, and share on your favorite social media! We can be followed for updates on Facebook.

 

If you’re curious about starting conjuration pick up my new book – Luminarium: A Grimoire of Cunning Conjuration

 

If you want some help exploring the vast world of spirits check out my first book – Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits

 Sign up for our free online publication: Minor Mendings Magical Magazine

More Opportunities for Support and Classes will show up at Ko-Fi

Considering an Act of Magic

Yesterday we presented a selection from Benvenuto Cellini’s autobiography, La Vita, in which he describes two experiments of conjuration. Published magical journals and accounts from the Middle Ages and he Renaissance our, to our detriment, not incredibly common. So, while this account is not an account by a magician it is one with which we should be familiar. Such accounts can help us get a broader picture of how magic was actually practiced.

          There is of course in modern magic some debate regarding how to interpret the grimoires. The idea that they are woefully incomplete such as to be unworkable is more or less, fortunately, dismissed. The idea that they are full of blinds and mis-directions is also, again fortunately, more or less dismissed. Now the question is more one of discreet and perfect textual adherence, or consideration of magic within a context that allows some blending and idiosyncrasy.

          Jason Miller has often pointed out that if magicians did precisely what the grimoires said all the time we would have many more examples of physical magical artifacts surviving, and for the most part we don’t. I have pointed out many times that the idea that texts were viewed as distinct and even holy instructions written by individual groups of spirits is shown faulty, not simply by the spirits often being the same book to book, but by the fact that we can trace literary lineages. Books clearly copy and draw from one another. Working books clearly copy pieces from other books and blend them together and make adjustments. Further what we generally see are translations which may combine multiple differing manuscript sources each source having differences, and so our readings are often not the readings of a singular book by a singular hand. Work books, and the books of cunningfolk show blending and adaptation, and accounts of the work of cunningfolk do as well.

          One might counter that the cunningfolk are not quite the same as the educated magicians who used the grimoires. This distinction is a faulty one when we consider the actual history. Even forgetting that that is the case, we have Cellini’s account of a priest, who has studied necromancy, performing magic. So, what does that account tell us?

          Firstly, Cellini’s priest performs the conjuration in two different ways. He works with a virgin boy scryer in one instance after having worked without the boy in the first. The conjurations he uses the second time are different than the first. His circle construction is more complicated the second time. Aside from that the description of the magician’s work is not particularly varied. It does not seem so much that he is using a different system each time but rather that he is ratchetting up his effort the second time by using what he believes to be more powerful conjurations and circle constructions. Cellini says that the first conjuration did not obtain his desire and upon that the magician offered a second attempt and assured that second attempt would secure success. This, to me, indicates that he was leveling up his game in the second attempt.

          There is no description of special clothing or of special tools, save that the necromancer has a robe or robes. One man holds a pentacle in the first attempt, and the other two deal with fires and perfumes. Curiously, he describes each being introduced to the circle as if there is some ritual of bringing someone in. While the grimoires, when describing a master and acolytes, instruct that the acolytes hold a sword and a candle, and stand in a particular spot, none of that is done here. The necromancer likely had a sword or rod because he drew circles on the ground, but no other such indication is given of him using any tools during the conjuration. They also do not describe any altar or table.

          It seems that Cellini and the necromancer were both able to perceive the devils they conjured, it also seems that they did not necessarily perceive the same things, the necromancer having to relay the answer to Cellini regarding his request. The boy clearly sees different things from what they see. Cellini’s account does not seem concerned about this. The lack of concern either suggests that it was a given, or that it simply did not concern Cellini and regardless of the difference he was satisfied with the experience.

          The primary materials seem to be the perfumes of which there seem to be a significant amount. The perfumes seem to be the main tool by which the spirits are called, along with the conjurations. The foul-smelling drugs, and flatulence, seem to be the most effective items in banishing them, more so than the magician’s dismissals. This seems to fit some of the ideas Dr. Stephen Skinner has put forth regarding spirits and smells.  

          In both instances Cellini’s necromancer either did not call forth a particular single spirit. In the first it is unclear, but in the second he called on several spirits by name. In both cases many spirits arrive. The magician seems unable to determine the number of spirits conjured or to command the legion of spirits. It seems as if the conjuration generally calls forth spirits. There is no effort to bind the spirits to a particular space, behavior, or appearance. This would suggest that the method is not strictly Solomonic in nature. In fact, most elements of a Solomonic conjuration seem to be missing from the description, whether or not they were missing from what was done.

          Regarding the conjurations they were a combination of Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Cellini does not mention the use of Italian. It may be that conjurations were not performed in the vernacular or that it was not worth being mentioned that the vernacular was used. It is likely that at this point, in a Catholic country, a priest would work magic in Latin given that magic was a parallel to liturgy.

          One of the things which has always been of interest to me is that the magician has several books with him. These books are in use in the ceremony because he must collect and bundle them at the end, therefore they have been taken out from their bundling. The books are not his consecrated ritual book upon which spirits have sworn. We know this because he asks for Cellini to help him in creating such a book. To me this has always suggested that the magician reads from a book when making his conjuration…although this would be more reasonable with a single consecrated book having all the conjurations he might use rather than several. It also counters the oft asserted idea that magicians were lucky to have a single magical text and would study and probe that singular text because they were unlikely to ever see another. All textual evidence shows thoroughly that this was untrue, yet it is still repeated as a justification for some modern approaches and interpretations. This account makes it very clear that even this random necromancer priest had multiple books at his disposal simultaneously. This also indicates that it was unlikely that a single book of magic was viewed as a discreet and unalterable thing, or he would not have needed multiple books with him at the time of his efforts.

          By the Renaissance the Colosseum was a ruin and an unkept space. It had been used as a quarry and thus the structure was in decay with parts of the building having been removed. Some locals used it for keeping stalls of their animals. So, it was a relatively abandoned space in the city. We sometimes note that the grimoires are not particularly express about the spaces in which to conjure, but what information we have often suggests far off and remote spaces. Abandoned spaces. The Colosseum would be such despite being within a city.

          Cellini’s account is an account of a priest who was learned in nigromancy, along with a partner with experience in nigromancy, during the Renaissance rather than a later account of a cunning person. It is an account of someone who is an example of a magician operating within the grimoire tradition during its own period of time. We don’t know how complete or how incomplete the account is, but Cellini does recount two instances similarly. Based on Cellini’s account one operating in this manner would retreat to a remote or abandoned space.  The principle exorcist needs a robe but additional participants do not need special clothes or preparations. A circle is to be drawn, and ritual preparations are made while drawing it – one would assume the psalms. Once everyone enters the circle fires are lit – I would assume braziers; and rich and fine perfumes are placed thereon. A pentacle is held up, if there is a scryer the pentacle is held above the scryer. The conjurer recites conjurations and prayers calling upon God, and upon the spirits by name. When the spirits arrive, they may be asked for a request. Once finished the spirits may be dismissed using foul odors and instructions to depart, or the Church bells striking morning prayers might dismiss them.

Cellini’s account presents a very stripped-down version of conjuration.  Before we dismiss this though, consider John Dee’s approach. It was largely a prayer of praise and confession and then prayers for the appearance of angels. There was not much more to it than that. Trithemius’s Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals (DSIC) looks very similar to the means by which Dee worked. DSIC might be a spurious text, but still seems to indicate well enough a basic approach to crystallomancy. This approach follows the essential idea of the grimoires but eschews the complexity of the tools and rituals. With that in mind, Cellini’s account, while not detailed, probably covers the main beats of what happened and still illustrates for us that conjuration in that context need not be as complicated as sometimes described.

So, in our previous post I noted that in today’s post I would provide some information on my new book, Luminarium: A Guide to Cunning Conjuration. In short, the book is a quick read, my test readers were all done it within a couple of days. The goal of the book is to give magicians a system they can use and begin doing conjurations with very little prep time. Reading the book, gathering and preparing the materials, and preparing yourself could all be done within a few days to a week – even if you’ve never done magic. Its goal is to help get new magicians off the sidelines, but also to provide a new and empowered way, drawing on old and traditional techniques, to give those already experimenting with conjuration a simplified and powerful method. The method essentially uses magic to augment the preparations and the conjuration itself to make things simpler and more accessible for the magician.  

Here is some initial feedback the book has gotten:

“I think it absolutely is fantastic this is so much needed and I think this is going to be really ground breaking and game changing.” – Anneliese Anthoinette

“I had recently petitioned Hekate to assist me with opening the ways to contact my HGA. My first go-around attempt a few years ago did not go well and I did not make it to the rite. The prayers and directions in your text were exactly what I was looking for to start a different approach!” – Jonathan Masters

“All I gotta say is.... WOAH. That was powerful. And I am buzzing. Also, some real interesting physical manifestation stuff happened” – Alexander Deckman

“I’m really excited for people to read this.” – Aequus Nox

The Kindle Edition of Luminarium is available for pre-order on Amazon now, it will go live June 7^th. The paperback edition should be available on Amazon either June 6^th or 7^th. A paperback and a hardback edition will be available through Barnes and Noble in a few weeks, as will paperback and hardback editions of Living Spirits.

If you enjoyed this, make sure to like, follow, and share on Facebook so you can keep informed of new posts! 

Costumes and Damnation: Getting Real About Conjuration

 Read on...but make sure to also click over and check out my new book Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits

I want to start this blog post with a shout out to Alexander Eth and his podcast Glitch Bottle. If you're not already listening to it, and I imagine a lot of you are, then you should check it out. He's had a lot of really cool guests on, especially ones you'll be interested in if you're into grimoire magic or other modes of spirit magic inspired by the grimoires. Aside from the guests though, Alexander is a really good host. Rufus Opus has spoken with me about how good Alexander is as an interviewer, and from listening to his show I can see why. I wasn't a big podcast listener until I checked out Runesoup and I got pretty into listening to that for awhile. That show works well because Gordon is not only knowledgeable about his guests but also about the subject matter. I was talking with another popular author who explained that one of the most difficult parts of a publicity campaign is being interviewed by non-occultists and having conversations where you basically talk around each other. When I've listened to random podcasts hosts who have no idea what they're talking about can really mess up an interview with a really interesting guest. Alexander brings something different to the table than Gordon, he's knowledgeable about the material and his guests, but his perspective is like that of a lot of listeners, he's still exploring a lot of the material and so there is a curiosity which creates room for a lot of interesting questions fueled by excitement and eagerness.

This is a much bigger plug for anything than I think I've done here before. Aside from that fact that it's a podcast worth checking out, I started with that because this blog post was inspired by listening to a recent Glitch Bottle episode in which Jake Stratton-Kent was interviewed.

About 15 minutes into the interview Alexander Eth poses this question:

“I would like to talk about some of those differences because for instance Doctor Skinner writes a lot about how a lot of the items in a ceremonial operation, the crown the sword the robes, these are done not for the magician's benefit but to impress the spirits so that according to Doctor Skinner, when you're engaging in an evocation the spirit isn't quite sure if you're King Solomon or not, and these threats that are made, obviously the mage has no actual power to force a spirit into the burning fires of hell for all eternity, but if someone threatens that way all of the sudden, the spirit as you said, according to the Iamblichus definition isn't sure so it's going to do what you want anyway if you bind it properly. IS that, can you just comment on that, in terms of are spirits, to Doctor Skinner's point, are they impressed or even fooled by this kind of regalia and approach and preconsecrated items?”

Jake answers by noting that this shows up in antiquity too and then questions if it's about building up the magician or trying to fool the spirit and notes that it can be both, the magician can be building himself up.

I can say, in short, I very much disagree with Doctor Skinner here. I've seen a few other popular grimoire authors suggest similar things and to me it seems kind of a weak position to take as far as intellectual exploration of what's happening goes. Especially since in many grimoires you're not dressing up as King Solomon, but you do still have ritual clothing to be worn. I have seen his Iamblichus argument in his books and it's never sat right with me. There are definitely spirits that fit the category Iamblichus describes, I would not say all the spirits conjured by the grimoires fit that description, Astaroth, Beelzebuth, Lucifer, Leviathan, Oriens, Paimon, Amaymon, Egyn... none of them strike me as stupid or confused, and I name those simply because I think most everyone will recognize that they clearly aren't spirits to whom this description applies. But lesser known demons also from the Hygromanteia and the Folger Manuscript also haven't struck me this way. Elemental spirits, manifestations developed from the experiences of a place, spirits that are largely characterized by an active force more than a persona, those seem to be what Iamblichus is describing.

So lets unpack the pieces.

You have the tools – which are consecrated; you have the costuming – to sometimes appear like Solomon; you have the binding – to constrain the spirit to perform your task; you have the condemnations to hell. So are any of these real? Do any of them have any actual affect? Or is it all just a trick?

Personally, if a paper crown fools a spirit into thinking I'm Solomon I probably don't want to trust that the spirit can follow directions on anything important. These spirits who teach all the sciences and arts, who reveal secrets, who have endless knowledge which we call upon them to obtain…are somehow dumb enough that paper costuming makes them think we’re a king from thousands of years ago? Major hole in the logic of the system. But it’s not the only hole.

If we're playing dress up to trick the spirit into thinking we're Solomon, why would Solomon have the power to eternally condemn them to hell when we don't? If it's about wearing a costume to trick spirits, why are we consecrating the tools? If we're binding the spirit, which is what conjuration is – binding the spirit by the power of the divine name or the power of the ruling spirit; then why do we need to go through the process of tricking them?

Doctor Skinner's position kind of undermines most of the rest of what is being done in a ritual of conjuration. It also seems to miss some important elements of the world view in which the grimoires existed and also that in which they developed.

We have to remember that the grimoires are largely the product of a Catholic worldview. They draw on Jewish and Greek traditions and influences, and many similar and related ideas are present within those Greek and Jewish worldviews. But the end product that we have is largely part of that Catholic worldview and so that's a good starting point for explaining what we're doing in the grimoires. We can then compare to similar practices in earlier magic.

The magic associated with the grimoires was initially “literate” magic that was largely engaged in by priests and low-level clerics, or people with holy orders but not necessarily initiated fully as priests.

If we look at the Heptameron we're not dressing up like Solomon, we're simply wearing a priest's robe. The lamen is also like a stand in for the breast-plate of the priests in Hebrew tradition. The Heptameron draws in part from the tradition of Raziel texts and then itself serves as a link for that tradition into the later Solomonic texts. In the Heptameron we have a meeting of Catholic and Jewish traditions. In this case we see pieces of both traditions linking the magician to the image of priesthood. The magician also is referred to as “the exorcist” in this text, which is not simply a description of what he is doing but also of his status. As an exorcist he possessed the sacrament of holy orders and with it certain powers that it confers.

Solomon is essentially an icon of the priest-king, which in Judaism is initially shown to us through Melchizedek, who in Christianity is himself linked to Jesus. In Catholicism all people who are anointed through Baptism have had the power to become a prophet priest and king conferred upon them. The sacrament of orders actualizes elements of this power and allows the individual to act upon it. So the magician is not simply dressing up as Solomon, as a priest the magician has access to those same functions of prophet priest and king which gave Solomon authority.

To further understand this we have to understand two other elements of the priest's function and power. One is a role of similitude and the other is as a key holder.

The priest when functioning in his role as minister of the sacrament of the Eucharist is in that moment the living representation of the Christ. In Catholicism this is called “alter-Christos” or “other Christ.” In a sense to be Christos simply means to be anointed, and therefore following in the tradition of Saul and David, having been anointed with the oil of divine authority. In his role in the Mass the priest offers sacrifice on behalf of the people, and to do so fully he must not only recall the breaking of Christ's body and the shedding of his blood, he must engage in that reality and understand that he himself is making that sacrifice in that moment. In sharing in this the priest holds the power and authority of Christ, who for Christianity is the exemplar of the exorcist and does authentically have the power to command spirits.

Along with this role of similitude the Eucharist is partially consecrated by the litany of Saints. This is done separately from the Mass through the practice of Eucharistic adoration, but also can be done in the Mass through the naming of Saints during the process of consecration. The Eucharist is empowered with the full life and experience of Christ so that he who receives it is initiated into the mysteries of faith and therefore takes part in the death, resurrection, and the promise of return. The idea here is not so much to receive the knowledge that this happened but to receive the power of the experience of death, resurrection, and hope. The priest, again, has the power to impart this through the consecration, the Saints, being further icons of the power of man to be prophet priest and king are invoked so that by their presence a chain of power is conveyed upon the material through the heroes of the faith.

When we dress as Solomon, or call upon his name to liken ourselves to him in our prayers, or otherwise with Moses, we are likening ourselves to that heroic spiritual power which was known to command these spirits. We are accessing that chain of spiritual force similarly to when we draw on our ancestors in magic or when we carry an icon of some hero.

This idea has been hinted at by some popular magicians in the grimoire current. Julio Cesar Ody suggests that when we perform the rituals ascribed to Solomon correctly we are working rituals that have had success in the past with these spirits. This may be because of the charismatic power of the original exorcists who worked them, but because their power was able to bind the spirits through this ritual they can now be bound by that ritual, by those signs and names, by future magicians. Dr. Al Cummins has also noted that when we work with the Saints and we work with folk Catholic traditions we are working with spiritual powers and methods that touched our ancestors for hundreds of years. When we work with systems and when we engage in acts which held and exercised power in the past we are in part connecting with those who have exercised power by those means previously. We are tapping into an overall current. We draw on a line of informal sainthood and the force that goes with it.

So the priest is a stand in for Jesus, and he is likened to Solomon, or maybe Moses, and all of these figures are Righteous Kings, or manifestations of the role of Melchizedek. Does dressing upon and playing the part confer that likeness and with it the power inherent therein?

Probably not, at least not fully and not on its own.

When the earlier grimoires were written it was expected that the magician would be a priest and would have received the necessary sacraments. It was assumed that he was part of the chain of apostolic succession that linked him to this power. So in a world where it is not so generally the case that magicians are priests how do we make this work?

When we get to later grimoires the systems for preparing tools and the magician and other elements of set up become a little less Church oriented and a little more complex. My assumption has been that as the grimoires become less Catholic they build in modes for harnessing spiritual power through consecrated tools in lieu of power held by initiation.

Still approaching from the perspective of that spiritual power is still a possibility. Plenty of occult orders offer initiation which brings with it some ordination to priesthood. Many of them confer said ordination with the same apostolic power that traditional churches do. Even outside of those structures, making a connection to that same spiritual power and charisma can be obtained through routine mystical practice and spiritual devotion.

So if we obtain the power to work as a prophet priest and king, does that power only give us a standing of charisma and authority from which to call upon spirits or does it actually empower our claim to cast spirits to the pits of the inferno or perhaps to speak on their behalf at the final judgement as some grimoires promise?

Yes, yes it does. This has never been a matter of tricking spirits, or lying to the spirits. Or at least I’ll say it shouldn’t be. Some instructions for necromancy make promises to work for the remission of the sins of the dead only to have the necromancer ritually burn the body to destroy whatever is left of the dead once they’ve done their work. In more honest magic, a magician should make claims he has some ability to back up. Some part of magic is lying to make the lie a truth. Saying something that isn’t in order to shape the world so that that which was said is now that which is. That’s different from lying purely for the sake of trickery, which would undermine the ability to lie to shape the world. So how does tapping into the current of priesthood back up these claims? The priest, is a key holder.

When we look at the Church the symbol of the Holy See is a pair of keys. Christ passed on to his successors the ability to bind and loose. What those within the apostolic line to Christ bind or constrain shall be bound or constrained by the powers of heaven, what they free or loose shall be freed or set loose by the powers of heaven. Thus participation in magic as a priest confers the power to cast a spirit to the pit or to speak towards their freedom. These are therefore not simply idle elements of an abusive monologue set to confuse and terrify a spirit, it should actually be a tool the magician is capable of using if necessary.

When we consider magic in general this idea of being a key holder, of binding or loosening should be something we recognize as important beyond simply punishing or rewarding spirits.

When we consider the Greek Magical Papyri it becomes easy to notice that one of the key magical figures to pop up frequently is Hekate. During the time of their assembly she was seen as the Mother, as the Savior, and as the fundamental cosmic power behind magic by the authors of the Chaldean Oracles, and likely other mystical thinkers of the Mediterranean world. She was a power at the center of magic in the Greek world. In the Egyptian world Heka was the power which likewise underlaid creation and on whose basis magic operated.

A central figure of Hekate was her role as Key Holder. One who holds the keys may open and close the ways by which powers travel within the world. A key holder may lock or fix a thing into being or unlock or loosen things so that they may change. The power to bind and loosen is a central power to magic in general. Even within the magic of conjuration binding and loosening is significant beyond simply casting to hell or pardoning to heaven. The conjuration itself is a binding. The spirit is bound to act in a certain manner, and bound from acting in manners unamenable to the magician, it is likewise freed or loosed upon the world to act in ways suited to the manner in which it has been bound.

All this said, I should note that while being ordained a priest, I don't tend to make a habit of damning spirits to hell.

If you liked the line of thinking here you can find more in my book Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits. Please consider ordering a copy.

You can also follow us on Facebook, and feel free to share this post so your friends can see it!

*Image above from tv series The Exorcist which previously aired on Fox.