|
Post by stubmle on Oct 7, 2013 16:41:18 GMT -8
Does anyone have any information on the Roman gods' stance regarding magical practices? The historical information I have been able to unearth is rather ambivalent on the subject. Some writers claim it is all bad, while others seem to believe that any prohibitions placed on it were politically motivated and came from the insecurity of the government, not the will of the gods (for that matter, the ancient sources seem divided on what constitutes "magic."). Of course, divination was an important aspect of the Roman religion, and presumably is acceptable, so I'm looking for information on more involved workings. I ask this only out of curiosity- magic seems too dangerous to warrant messing with, at least for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by Heliocoptero on Oct 8, 2013 10:53:11 GMT -8
It basically all comes down to means, goals and perhaps tradition. Necromancy, for instance, was largely frowned upon, but calling on gods of the underworld was not unheard of among Romans; divination had its official and State-sponsored versions, but then there were also more common methods and practices, and while they could be largely tolerated, there was the fear that knowledge of the future might be used to physically harm people, namely State officials. That's the element of political motivation you mentioned, which was increased by a distaste for things that were outside the control of the authorities (the suppression of the Bacchanalia is a good example).
Setting the political aspect aside, if nothing else because there is no longer any Roman State to control things, if I had to sum it up in a word, I would say: freedom! Whatever magical work you do, do not deny the Gods, wights and dead the freedom to say no to you. Necromancy can be like putting a leash on a deceased person and force him/her to act in a given way, but the traditional curses worked more on the basis of a deal with the dead and powers of the underworld: harm that guy and I'll sacrifice you this and that. Of course, they could always say no and nothing would happen. This, I reckon, is a basic element of Roman religion: it's contract-based! That's why ancient authors would sometimes equate religion with reason. It's not business between equals, granted, but the principle of do ut des or "I give that you may give" applies anyway, so it's not a matter of submission or destruction of free-will. It's a contract whereby one part proposes a deal and the other may reject it; and if the latter accepts it, the former is obliged to fulfil its part of the deal. Whatever magical working you're considering, keep that principle in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2013 12:57:47 GMT -8
For me, magic and religion are separate practices. Unless something I'm going to do magically would specifically offend my Deities, I feel free to conduct that side of my practice just like any other craft. That is, I do it within the scope of my religion (I do most everything within the scope of my religion), but not necessarily always FOR my religion.
Of course, there are Deities who are specifically associated with magic (Hecate in one that comes to mind) and for devotees of those Deities it would make sense to have magic be part of the religious practice. For example, there's a thread on this forum about working with Athena as Patroness of Weavers. If you are devoted to Her and you are a weaver, it makes sense to make that part of your religious practice. However if you aren't devoted to Her and you are a weaver, it might be a craft that you do in sight of the Gods (I wouldn't go around claiming to be the best at it, for example), but not specifically for Them. Individual choice.
Many cultures had prohibitions against various types of magic (frequently politically motivated -- you might say magic is fundamentally subversive) even while Deities within the culture seemed to have no specific warning against it. So I'd say you go to the highest authority on the subject, your Deities, to see if there's an issue.
Note too, that I take divination to be completely a different animal and a particularly useful tool for communicating with your Gods.
|
|
|
Post by MadGastronomer on Oct 8, 2013 20:28:36 GMT -8
Heliocoptero, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the extant Roman curse tablets specifically invoke the shades of the dead. They don't generally compel, which I agree is not acceptable, but I think necromancy was a common part of folk magic.
I agree with Admin. Some gods seem to not be so fond of magic, while others are intimately connected to it. Some forms of magic, like protective charms, seem to have be so common as to go without comment. Unless your gods specifically forbid *you* from practicing it, Stubmle, I should think you'd be fine.
Myself, I'm a dedicant of Hecate, and working and (occasionally) teaching magic are part of my obligation to her.
Magic does not have to be dangerous, although of course some kinds of it often are. Simple charms, for protection, for healing, to make the bread rise, and so forth, are, well, simple, and a standard part of folk magic across the world and history.
I admit, I don't know a lot about Roman magic specifically, but I have run across a lot of brief references in various works on the topic. Both the SATOR square and ABRACADABRA are from or found in Roman works and buildings, and are charms used for many things. The SATOR square is generally considered to be a protective charm, especially against fire, while ABRACADABRA, written in triangle form, is generally thought of as a banishing charm, with the spirit, curse, or illness it is meant to disperse vanishing as the word does.
In case you're not familiar, here's the SATOR square:
SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS
It's a four-times palindrome, as it can be read right-to-left, left-to-right, up-to-down, and down-to-up identically. Historically, it appears most often inscribed on walls and roof-beams, but may have been used in amulets and other more perishable forms as well.
The ABRACADABRA triangle is generally used in amulets. Quintus Serenus Sammonicus, personal physician to the Emperor Caracalla, recommended an amulet with this formula be worn by people suffering from malaria.
A-B-R-A-C-A-D-A-B-R-A A-B-R-A-C-A-D-A-B-R A-B-R-A-C-A-D-A-B A-B-R-A-C-A-D-A A-B-R-A-C-A-D A-B-R-A-C-A A-B-R-A-C A-B-R-A A-B-R A-B A
These are, of course, the very simplest kinds of magic, and highly formulaic. They can be performed simply by inscribing the letters on paper, carving them into wood, plastic, or stone, or imprinting them into some soft thin metal. In Rome, the last was commonly thick lead foil, which can be difficult to obtain these days. Heavy copper, brass or tin foil can be bought from many craft stores these days, though, as can a metal stylus (you may want to look in a sculpting section if they don't have them next to the foil) or metal letter stamps. The metal can then be framed to make a plaque or, done very small, rolled up and put in a small bag or hollow case of some kind to wear as an amulet. Go over the letters some ritual number of times -- three, seven and nine are all common, but pick one that works for your symbolism -- and, if you like, invoke whatever protective genii (or lares, for your home) you give tribute to, while stating aloud the purpose of your charm. Ta-da, simple magic.
|
|
|
Post by MadGastronomer on Oct 8, 2013 20:30:18 GMT -8
Harrumph. Stupid formatting. The ABRACADABRA triangle is meant to be an isosceles or equilateral one, with both sides even. ETA: The foil I'm talking about is 36 gauge tooling or embossing foil, like this.
|
|
|
Post by Heliocoptero on Oct 9, 2013 10:33:15 GMT -8
Heliocoptero, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the extant Roman curse tablets specifically invoke the shades of the dead. They don't generally compel, which I agree is not acceptable, but I think necromancy was a common part of folk magic. They do, yes, in as much as the tablets could then be placed next to or inside cracks in tombs and graves. It's a form of necromancy, true, and not only was it tolerated, in a way it was even traditional. The question is one of content and while proposing a deal to the gods and spirits of the underworld was within the norm, manipulating of the dead could equal the crossing of the line.
|
|
|
Post by MadGastronomer on Oct 9, 2013 17:51:44 GMT -8
Well, that's what I'm saying, rather. It's not about whether you ask the dead to help you -- which is still necromancy -- it's about whether or not you force them to. It's the line "Necromancy, for instance, was largely frowned upon" that I'm disagreeing with here.
|
|
|
Post by Heliocoptero on Oct 10, 2013 6:59:24 GMT -8
Well, that's what I'm saying, rather. It's not about whether you ask the dead to help you -- which is still necromancy -- it's about whether or not you force them to. It's the line "Necromancy, for instance, was largely frowned upon" that I'm disagreeing with here. To be honest, I don't know how far the definition of necromancy in the ancient world was that wide. To ask the dead for help is pretty much a basic thing in any religion that includes some form of ancestor veneration or worship. I get the feeling the definition wasn't that generic, otherwise the domestic cult of the Family Lares would be a form of necromancy. May have had a much more restrictive sense of practices that involved a contact with the underworld and bringing back the dead in some form. Here's a quote from the first volume of the Religions of Rome by Mary Beard et al. that may help to clarify the matter: "She inhabited deserted graves, feeding on rotting bodies, 'gleefully scooping out the stiffened eyeballs, and gnawing the yellow nails on the withered on the withered hand'; and she foretold the future, not with proper prayers, hymns or sacrifices to the gods, but by 'necromancy', with revivified corpses. This disgusting abomination was the antithesis of rational and humane religious practices." (p. 220) This is based on Lucan's Pharsalia, so it may reflect only the views of the Roman elite. But it does give a sense of how restrictive the definition of necromancy could be and how it would be frowned upon, while more traditional and "proper" forms of veneration and practices involving the dead were tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by MadGastronomer on Oct 10, 2013 8:33:17 GMT -8
Well, if you're going to get into that, the actual Latin word is *necromantia*, which is literally divination from an exhumed corpse, or divination with the spirits of the dead, such as Hercules asking questions of the dead he summoned, which included, iirc, some members of his own family. But we're *both* talking about wider definitions than that, and much more recent definitions. And more recent definitions leave out magic done with the aid of the spirits of ancestors, because there are other terms for that, but generally include any other sort of magic performed with the aid of the dead.
|
|
|
Post by MadGastronomer on Oct 10, 2013 21:03:44 GMT -8
Small correction: I was thinking of Odysseus, not Hercules, specifically because the section in the Odyssey is known in Latin as the Necromantia Homeri, the necromancy of Homer.
|
|
|
Post by marybeth on Oct 12, 2013 10:24:37 GMT -8
I'm with Admin; I think, ultimately, it's up to you and your Gods. I don't practice much magic anymore(somehow it has become less relevant over time, and has been replaced by prayer, asking for help from ancestors, etc.), but generally the Gods I've worked with have never expressed/shown any sort of disapproval and have even helped. HOWEVER, They can place restrictions on some people for specific purposes that They don't on others, so I don't know that it's right to make a hard and fast rule for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by marybeth on Oct 12, 2013 10:25:52 GMT -8
(That said, my *personal* opinion is that working with magic/energy, even if you don't perform actual spellwork, is an excellent way to train certain senses to perceive Them better. But that is just me!)
|
|
|
Post by albatross on Apr 5, 2014 19:56:58 GMT -8
In the way I look at our world, to get shit done you need the consent of all involved parties. Want the land to send forth abundant blessings? Don't be a disrespectful lil douche. So in the case of magic I see it as a question of authority. Say the Beautiful Goddesses of Love decreed that this and that person and that other person should hook up. For whatever reason you decide you don't like it and you try to break them up, create complications in the relationship, whatever. Well, where do you get the ability to change that? Where does a puny mortal with no authority over the Goddesses get the power? Ofcourse, this is only in my worldview and I am not a magic-user. (A little here and there, though.) In the case of the theoretical hookup you didn't approve of you'd just have to suck it up, because the Goddesses made it so. But say they didn't, you could work a spell or somesuch but you'd better make sure that's good with the Powers Who oversee such things. Again, just how I see it. Someone would better experience would have a more valuable opinion.
|
|